"Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies" – Executive Order(whitehouse.gov)
whitehouse.gov
"Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies" – Executive Order
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/ensuring-accountability-for-all-agencies/
1,374 comments
Even with a highly sympathetic Supreme Court it is hard to imagine this EO standing.
It goes against the foundation of not only US law, but couple of hundred years of international democratic tradition in which allegiance is not to a person, but to the nation itself.
US civil servants and military alike swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution not the president or their commander. Illegal orders are not only expected, but required to be disobeyed.
This EO eliminates the concept of an illegal order since the law would be whatever the executive interprets it to be.
It goes against the foundation of not only US law, but couple of hundred years of international democratic tradition in which allegiance is not to a person, but to the nation itself.
US civil servants and military alike swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution not the president or their commander. Illegal orders are not only expected, but required to be disobeyed.
This EO eliminates the concept of an illegal order since the law would be whatever the executive interprets it to be.
> it is hard to imagine this EO standing
There are many things that I thought would not survive the scrutiny of good people within the system of checks and balances.
But here were are. It seems that "good people within the system of checks and balances" were the only obstacle to absolute power.
There are many things that I thought would not survive the scrutiny of good people within the system of checks and balances.
But here were are. It seems that "good people within the system of checks and balances" were the only obstacle to absolute power.
There used to be competing centers of power. But then they stacked the judiciary and used manipulative propaganda to turn the congress and senate into a rubber stamp. The only check on power was having the interest of those institutions not aligned with each other, for them to have power that they were able to exercise independently.
> It goes against the foundation of not only US law, but couple of hundred years of international democratic tradition in which allegiance is not to a person, but to the nation itself.
The United States had a spoils system of government administration until at least the late 1800s. The spoils system was still prevalent in many state and city governments until the mid 1900s.
This didn't mean officials were permitted to violate the law, but self-dealing and bald partisanship in administration was rampant, and of course violations of the law often went unpunished as administration officials had (and have) discretion to prosecute.
The United States had a spoils system of government administration until at least the late 1800s. The spoils system was still prevalent in many state and city governments until the mid 1900s.
This didn't mean officials were permitted to violate the law, but self-dealing and bald partisanship in administration was rampant, and of course violations of the law often went unpunished as administration officials had (and have) discretion to prosecute.
> The spoils system was still prevalent in many state and city governments until the mid 1900s.
Chicago, NYC, the entire state government of New Jersey....
That stuff still goes on today.
Chicago, NYC, the entire state government of New Jersey....
That stuff still goes on today.
This EO eliminates the concept of an illegal order since the law would be whatever the executive interprets it to be.
How do you come to that to conclusion, especially in the context of the EO?
This EO doesn't change the Constitution's requirement that the President "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed".
I'm not a lawyer but I would interpret this EO to say "it is the job of the President to execute the laws passed by Congress" and "the President may employ subordinates in that execution", however "these subordinates must still execute based on the President's interpretation, not their own".
The EO has a long section on "independent agencies which operate without Presidential supervision". This is what the EO clarifies.
> This EO eliminates the concept of an illegal order since the law would be whatever the executive interprets it to be.
This isn't true at all. This EO doesn't change the fact that President is held accountable by the judicial branch for following the law.
How do you come to that to conclusion, especially in the context of the EO?
This EO doesn't change the Constitution's requirement that the President "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed".
I'm not a lawyer but I would interpret this EO to say "it is the job of the President to execute the laws passed by Congress" and "the President may employ subordinates in that execution", however "these subordinates must still execute based on the President's interpretation, not their own".
The EO has a long section on "independent agencies which operate without Presidential supervision". This is what the EO clarifies.
> This EO eliminates the concept of an illegal order since the law would be whatever the executive interprets it to be.
This isn't true at all. This EO doesn't change the fact that President is held accountable by the judicial branch for following the law.
> "these subordinates must still execute based on the President's interpretation, not their own".
Yes, this is a problem, because it would mean that if the President (for simplicity, the order also specified the AG, but it doesn't really change the issue) had an opinion on the law, and the courts issued an order to an executive officer such as a department head in a lawsuit contrary to that interpretation, the department head would remain bound by the Presidential interpretation until the President relented, since the meaning and effect of a court order is no less a matter of interpreting the law than the meaning and effect of a regulation, statute, or Constitutional provision.
Sec. 7 is so ridiculous on its face that, while I am sure the Administration seriously does want to impose as much of this control as it can get away with, I think it was largely included as a lightning rod to distract from the rest of the order moving control of all independent agencies internal spending allocations into OMB and the Executive Office of the President and otherwise purporting to transfer effective control of the functions assigned by law to the independent agencies to be exercised by their boards into the White House.
Yes, this is a problem, because it would mean that if the President (for simplicity, the order also specified the AG, but it doesn't really change the issue) had an opinion on the law, and the courts issued an order to an executive officer such as a department head in a lawsuit contrary to that interpretation, the department head would remain bound by the Presidential interpretation until the President relented, since the meaning and effect of a court order is no less a matter of interpreting the law than the meaning and effect of a regulation, statute, or Constitutional provision.
Sec. 7 is so ridiculous on its face that, while I am sure the Administration seriously does want to impose as much of this control as it can get away with, I think it was largely included as a lightning rod to distract from the rest of the order moving control of all independent agencies internal spending allocations into OMB and the Executive Office of the President and otherwise purporting to transfer effective control of the functions assigned by law to the independent agencies to be exercised by their boards into the White House.
> the department head would remain bound by the Presidential interpretation until the President relented
I don't know what you mean by "bound"?
The President, EOs and the exective branch are not immune from court decisions.
If a court rules again an EO, the President would need to abide by that court decision. As per this EO, the department head would do what the President wanted (align to the court order), and would thus be in compliance with the court order.
In the case the President decides to ignore the court order, the department head has an option - do what the President says or do what the court says. If they decided to do what the President says they would also be in violation of the court order. If they did what the court said, they would likely be fired.
It's not like this EO really changes the situation? Before this EO a department head would have the same choices and face the same risk of being fired.
> Sec. 7 is so ridiculous on its face that, while I am sure the Administration seriously does want to impose as much of this control as it can get away with
I'm not sure what you mean? Why is it ridiculous that an agency which derives it's authority from the executive be able to ignore the head of the executive's interpretation of the law? Who would they be accountable to if not the US President? Nobody?
There are no "independent agencies" under the US Constitution. All agencies exist under the purview of the President. What Section 7 says is "no executive agency employee may make an independent interpretation of a law outside that determined by the head of the executive".
This is entirely aligned with prior US Supreme Court decisions that the US President has sole authority over the Executive Branch.
I'm not sure we'd want to have an unelected executive agencies that is unaccountable to head of the executive branch. That just wouldn't even make sense.
I don't know what you mean by "bound"?
The President, EOs and the exective branch are not immune from court decisions.
If a court rules again an EO, the President would need to abide by that court decision. As per this EO, the department head would do what the President wanted (align to the court order), and would thus be in compliance with the court order.
In the case the President decides to ignore the court order, the department head has an option - do what the President says or do what the court says. If they decided to do what the President says they would also be in violation of the court order. If they did what the court said, they would likely be fired.
It's not like this EO really changes the situation? Before this EO a department head would have the same choices and face the same risk of being fired.
> Sec. 7 is so ridiculous on its face that, while I am sure the Administration seriously does want to impose as much of this control as it can get away with
I'm not sure what you mean? Why is it ridiculous that an agency which derives it's authority from the executive be able to ignore the head of the executive's interpretation of the law? Who would they be accountable to if not the US President? Nobody?
There are no "independent agencies" under the US Constitution. All agencies exist under the purview of the President. What Section 7 says is "no executive agency employee may make an independent interpretation of a law outside that determined by the head of the executive".
This is entirely aligned with prior US Supreme Court decisions that the US President has sole authority over the Executive Branch.
I'm not sure we'd want to have an unelected executive agencies that is unaccountable to head of the executive branch. That just wouldn't even make sense.
The constitutional argument is ridiculous; we've really been frog boiled into a wildly different understanding of executive power than even the most monarchical Founders imagined. Article II sections 2 and 3 are short and grant almost no powers. Practically all executive power outside stuff like appointments and pardons derives from this clause: "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". Nearly all governmental power resides in Congress, on purpose, as it's the most democratically responsive yet least efficient of the branches. For example, a lot of people probably think either Commerce or Treasury mint coins. Nope, constitution says that's Congress. People think State, or maybe Commerce negotiates trade treaties; nope Congress again. Post Office? Congress.
What this means is that the President executes Congress' will. Reading the Constitution, there's just no argument for anything else. You have to dig into subsequent history, acts of Congress, and Supreme Court decisions to reach the justifications for the wild increase of presidential power. I'm not saying this is bad per se, just that the Constitution argument is absolutely bankrupt and ahistorical: there was zero appetite for a powerful executive in the Continental Congress.
That's what's so radical about this EO: it's antithetical to the very founding of the US where we rebelled against a king and ultimately adopted a constitution with a very weak executive. It supplants the will of Congress with the will of the executive, undermining the separation of powers, plenary powers, and the very underpinnings of our government.
What this means is that the President executes Congress' will. Reading the Constitution, there's just no argument for anything else. You have to dig into subsequent history, acts of Congress, and Supreme Court decisions to reach the justifications for the wild increase of presidential power. I'm not saying this is bad per se, just that the Constitution argument is absolutely bankrupt and ahistorical: there was zero appetite for a powerful executive in the Continental Congress.
That's what's so radical about this EO: it's antithetical to the very founding of the US where we rebelled against a king and ultimately adopted a constitution with a very weak executive. It supplants the will of Congress with the will of the executive, undermining the separation of powers, plenary powers, and the very underpinnings of our government.
> It's not like this EO really changes the situation? Before this EO a department head would have the same choices and face the same risk of being fired.
No, this is completely false. The President doesn't have the authority to fire a department head for following a court order, and if they tried they would get sued and clearly lose, and be forced to reinstate the fired person, and other employees would follow this pattern.
With this EO, the President does get this exact authority, and the courts would be forced to side with the president in the matter of the firing, if the EO is allowed to stand by the SC.
No, this is completely false. The President doesn't have the authority to fire a department head for following a court order, and if they tried they would get sued and clearly lose, and be forced to reinstate the fired person, and other employees would follow this pattern.
With this EO, the President does get this exact authority, and the courts would be forced to side with the president in the matter of the firing, if the EO is allowed to stand by the SC.
> Who would they be accountable to if not the US President?
Accountability does not require absolute control. A subordinate official can be permitted (even mandated) to exercise independent judgement and still be accountable for mis-, mal-, and nonfeasance to a higher authority.
And this has, with different precise parameters, long been the statutory model governing the President’s relations with much of the executive branch, with different specific rules applicable to civil service employees generally, Inspectors-General and a few other specially-designated employees in regular departments, and independent agencies.
Accountability does not require absolute control. A subordinate official can be permitted (even mandated) to exercise independent judgement and still be accountable for mis-, mal-, and nonfeasance to a higher authority.
And this has, with different precise parameters, long been the statutory model governing the President’s relations with much of the executive branch, with different specific rules applicable to civil service employees generally, Inspectors-General and a few other specially-designated employees in regular departments, and independent agencies.
> I'm not sure we'd want to have an unelected executive agencies that is unaccountable to head of the executive branch. That just wouldn't even make sense.
Independent agencies, that execute their mission rather than the whims of one man (and are accountable to the law) don't make sense to you?
Independent agencies, that execute their mission rather than the whims of one man (and are accountable to the law) don't make sense to you?
No, not at all. Who are they accountable to? Nobody?
Anyone who knows even US Civics 101 would recoil at such an idea.
Anyone who knows even US Civics 101 would recoil at such an idea.
Have you heard of the courts?
The president can settle any issues between their view, the agency head’s view, and the agency’s guiding laws, in the courts.
The courts are their specifically to settle disagreements.
That’s how the law works for agencies. That’s how the law works for all laws.
Three branches checking each other.
The president can settle any issues between their view, the agency head’s view, and the agency’s guiding laws, in the courts.
The courts are their specifically to settle disagreements.
That’s how the law works for agencies. That’s how the law works for all laws.
Three branches checking each other.
They are accountable to the courts, whose job it is to decide if they are faithfully fulfilling the laws laid out by Congress.
Sure, but that's true before and after this EO.
What I'm talking about is accountability for interpretation of the law.
Let's say the head of an agency decides their interpretation of the law is X, but the President thinks it's Y. You can't bring them to court because X and Y fall within the interpretation of law.
If agencies were not accountable to the President, you basically have an unelected/unaccountable (when it comes to policy within interpretation of the law) bureaucrat that the voters are unable to hold accountable.
With this EO, the voters can elect a President who can then direct the agency head to execute interpretation Y.
That seems like the more idea scenario?
What I'm talking about is accountability for interpretation of the law.
Let's say the head of an agency decides their interpretation of the law is X, but the President thinks it's Y. You can't bring them to court because X and Y fall within the interpretation of law.
If agencies were not accountable to the President, you basically have an unelected/unaccountable (when it comes to policy within interpretation of the law) bureaucrat that the voters are unable to hold accountable.
With this EO, the voters can elect a President who can then direct the agency head to execute interpretation Y.
That seems like the more idea scenario?
The president names the agency heads, and their mandates expire roughly or exactly at the same time as the president's. That's more than enough control. The president can't and shouldn't then go and get into the weeds of specific policies that those agency heads then coordinate.
Also, settling the ultimate interpretation of the law is indeed the prerogative of the courts. This has actually changed quite recently in some ways - the SC has recently struck down the Chevron Doctrine, which held that the courts would defer to the executive when a law could be interpreted in different ways. So right now if Congress passes a law that says "the EPA shall insure that American citizens have potable drinking water", it is ultimately up to the courts to decide if the level of lead in water set by the EPA makes the water potable or not.
But however you slice it, the president shouldn't be the one to decide if the level of lead in water being enforced by the EPA is too little or too much. If the head of the EPA and the courts believe that a certain level is good enough, than that's that. After all, the president chose this head of the EPA. The next president can choose another head.
Also, settling the ultimate interpretation of the law is indeed the prerogative of the courts. This has actually changed quite recently in some ways - the SC has recently struck down the Chevron Doctrine, which held that the courts would defer to the executive when a law could be interpreted in different ways. So right now if Congress passes a law that says "the EPA shall insure that American citizens have potable drinking water", it is ultimately up to the courts to decide if the level of lead in water set by the EPA makes the water potable or not.
But however you slice it, the president shouldn't be the one to decide if the level of lead in water being enforced by the EPA is too little or too much. If the head of the EPA and the courts believe that a certain level is good enough, than that's that. After all, the president chose this head of the EPA. The next president can choose another head.
It's to be seen how "interpretation" is interpreted, if the president can declare it doesn't mean what it clearly does.
If a law is too much subject to interpretation, anyhow, the congress, which is the branch deputed at making the law, can change it at any time.
And most of all, I'm not sure in the US case, but when there are interpretation disputes you typically can have courts declare what's the correct interpretation.
If a law is too much subject to interpretation, anyhow, the congress, which is the branch deputed at making the law, can change it at any time.
And most of all, I'm not sure in the US case, but when there are interpretation disputes you typically can have courts declare what's the correct interpretation.
[deleted]
> Let's say the head of an agency decides their interpretation of the law is X, but the President thinks it's Y. You can't bring them to court because X and Y fall within the interpretation of law.
Uh, who is “you” in this scenario? Because for most reasonable values, yes, you can.
Differing interpretations of the law by different executive branch officers have never stopped outside parties from suing those executive officers over their execution of the law, with the courts ultimately deciding the correct interpretation (sometimes with some degree of deference, but never absolute, to executive interpretations.)
Uh, who is “you” in this scenario? Because for most reasonable values, yes, you can.
Differing interpretations of the law by different executive branch officers have never stopped outside parties from suing those executive officers over their execution of the law, with the courts ultimately deciding the correct interpretation (sometimes with some degree of deference, but never absolute, to executive interpretations.)
Again, they're accountable to the laws that regulate them and the judicial system, in their every action.
It's something extremely common in normal democracies, and if it's really antithetical to US civics, that's just another proof that the US were only a pretence of a democratic system.
It's something extremely common in normal democracies, and if it's really antithetical to US civics, that's just another proof that the US were only a pretence of a democratic system.
Also, they're run by people appointed by elected officials, just like any other government agency. They serve according to laws passed by the people's representatives and signed by the president, and they can be removed from their positions according to the law, as well. The theory that all executive authority must stem from the president's will and be subject to his whim is novel, monarchical, and highly dangerous.
And those laws make them accountable in explicitly specified manner to the President, who is empowered to remove them, but only for enumerated causes.
If it's so they're hardly independent agencies, and the point of this executive order is indeed to eliminate the independence.
No because "independent agency" just mean the agency was established by law, with a specific mandate and regulations that the President can't independently change.
It doesn't mean the agency isn't a part of the Executive branch with the President at it's head and it doesn't mean the President can't fire them for specific reasons.
It doesn't mean the agency isn't a part of the Executive branch with the President at it's head and it doesn't mean the President can't fire them for specific reasons.
Again, if the president can have a strong influence on them, they're not independent, however they might get called
Congress
> The President, EOs and the exective branch are not immune from court decisions.
Sure they are, if they want to be. Federal courts don't have their own enforcement arm. Even if they find specific officials in contempt of court, and order them arrested, Trump can simply order the US Marshals service to just... not arrest them.
Sure they are, if they want to be. Federal courts don't have their own enforcement arm. Even if they find specific officials in contempt of court, and order them arrested, Trump can simply order the US Marshals service to just... not arrest them.
Under this EO he could even choose to “interpret the law” such that it was illegal for the Marshal’s service to arrest executive branch officials without explicit Presidential permission (and this flows naturally from the same version of unitary executive theory as this EOs rule on legal interpration itself relies on), and it would not only be a violation of this order for them to carry out the arrest, but it would be a violation of the order for anyone in the executive branch to disagree that that was the law.
> Trump can simply order the US Marshals service to just... not arrest them.
Yes. Or even more perniciously, just note the arrests have been put on the long “to do list”, to be studied fully, and carried out with special care, all of which takes time…
Because of course the arrest order is being taken seriously and the courts decisions respected.
Yes. Or even more perniciously, just note the arrests have been put on the long “to do list”, to be studied fully, and carried out with special care, all of which takes time…
Because of course the arrest order is being taken seriously and the courts decisions respected.
> Yes, this is a problem, because it would mean that if the President (for simplicity, the order also specified the AG, but it doesn't really change the issue) had an opinion on the law, and the courts issued an order to an executive officer such as a department head in a lawsuit contrary to that interpretation, the department head would remain bound by the Presidential interpretation until the President relented, since the meaning and effect of a court order is no less a matter of interpreting the law than the meaning and effect of a regulation, statute, or Constitutional provision.
I don't think that's true? Court orders are orders, not laws, and the two are very different.
I don't think that's true? Court orders are orders, not laws, and the two are very different.
But who will enforce a court order if the executive branch decided to ignore it?
This executive order doesn't change anything about that as far as I can see. If the president says the law means one thing, other executive agencies have to follow that interpretation - but the courts will still do their own thing, and a court order is just as binding whether you agree with it or not (and indeed whether it's legally correct or not).
> and a court order is just as binding whether you agree with it or not (and indeed whether it's legally correct or not).
But the same question remains. Who’s going to enforce it?
But the same question remains. Who’s going to enforce it?
> But the same question remains. Who’s going to enforce it?
Whoever did or didn't before. It's got nothing to do with this executive order as far as I can see.
Whoever did or didn't before. It's got nothing to do with this executive order as far as I can see.
Before this EO the executive branch policy on court orders was "always listen to them." This EO changes that to "ignore court orders if they conflict with what the president wants"
How? Court orders aren't a matter of interpretation of the law. Agencies might follow interpretations of the law that blatantly conflict with court orders when considering matters not directly covered by those court orders, but they've already been doing that for decades, the EO doesn't change anything about that.
Seems like it needs to be spelled out for you: Enforcement of federal law is overseen by the DOJ, an executive department bound by this very EO.
Do you see it now?
Do you see it now?
The question of which federal laws to enforce is indeed controlled by the president. That's already normal and has been used by many presidents to de facto change the law (e.g. weed non-enforcement, various immigration amnesties). But that's got nothing to do with court orders.
Do i understand corretly?
The executive shall enforce orders, because it is bound by laws to do so, which for the executive can only be interpreted by the president?
Sounds like a power grab to me.
The executive shall enforce orders, because it is bound by laws to do so, which for the executive can only be interpreted by the president?
Sounds like a power grab to me.
> The executive shall enforce orders, because it is bound by laws to do so
No? They don't do their job because the law compels them to do (often it doesn't, e.g. the police don't have any positive legal obligation to make arrests or what have you). They do their job because it's their job.
No? They don't do their job because the law compels them to do (often it doesn't, e.g. the police don't have any positive legal obligation to make arrests or what have you). They do their job because it's their job.
> This EO doesn't change the fact that President is held accountable by the judicial branch for following the law.
Didn't the judicial branch say that presidents have broad(or near total) immunity for their official acts? Then how is the judiciary going to hold the president accountable when they choose to interpret the law based on personal whim?
With this EO, every federal worker has to adhere to that whim or face dismissal at best or prosecution at worst.
Didn't the judicial branch say that presidents have broad(or near total) immunity for their official acts? Then how is the judiciary going to hold the president accountable when they choose to interpret the law based on personal whim?
With this EO, every federal worker has to adhere to that whim or face dismissal at best or prosecution at worst.
> This EO doesn't change the fact that President is held accountable by the judicial branch for following the law.
That's the big question, though, isn't it? Will current SCOTUS actually pass down rulings based on the law and constitutionality, or will they defer to Trump on many/most/all things?
And if they pass down a ruling that Trump doesn't like, will he obey the court? Or will he just instruct his people to ignore it? Federal courts and SCOTUS don't really have much or anything in the way of enforcement power, if the executive branch wants to ignore them.
The only real backstop to this is Congress' power to impeach. Which won't happen. And even if it did, would Trump actually leave office? And if he didn't, who would have the ability and willingness to step in and force him to leave?
If the answer to all this is "the military", whoooo boy, are we in trouble. And even that assumes all the military leadership hasn't been retired by then, with Trump loyalists installed in their place.
That's the big question, though, isn't it? Will current SCOTUS actually pass down rulings based on the law and constitutionality, or will they defer to Trump on many/most/all things?
And if they pass down a ruling that Trump doesn't like, will he obey the court? Or will he just instruct his people to ignore it? Federal courts and SCOTUS don't really have much or anything in the way of enforcement power, if the executive branch wants to ignore them.
The only real backstop to this is Congress' power to impeach. Which won't happen. And even if it did, would Trump actually leave office? And if he didn't, who would have the ability and willingness to step in and force him to leave?
If the answer to all this is "the military", whoooo boy, are we in trouble. And even that assumes all the military leadership hasn't been retired by then, with Trump loyalists installed in their place.
> This EO eliminates the concept of an illegal order since the law would be whatever the executive interprets it to be.
Isn't this exactly how it works? They interpret it and that stands unless challenged in court.
Isn't this exactly how it works? They interpret it and that stands unless challenged in court.
The nuance here, based on the EO, is rank file and employees of these agencies must now rely on the sole interpretation of the law by either the president or the AG instead of themselves. These _were_ independent agencies who handled their own interpretation of the law.
If you combine this EO with the Supreme Court immunity decision, there may very well be a situation where a rank and file employee acts illegally based on the president's interpretation of the law. This would create a situation where there is a legal challenge about whether a member of the executive branch should be granted the same immunity privileges as the president since they are an extension of the president. You can imagine where things will head if we end up on the wrong side of this decision.
If you combine this EO with the Supreme Court immunity decision, there may very well be a situation where a rank and file employee acts illegally based on the president's interpretation of the law. This would create a situation where there is a legal challenge about whether a member of the executive branch should be granted the same immunity privileges as the president since they are an extension of the president. You can imagine where things will head if we end up on the wrong side of this decision.
> rank file and employees of these agencies must now rely on the sole interpretation of the law by either the president or the AG instead of themselves. These _were_ independent agencies who handled their own interpretation of the law
At first glance, it seems like it's a positive thing for all members of the executive branch adhere to the same interpretation of the law. It's the definition of "arbitrary and capricious" if one executive agency interprets the same law differently than another. As others have commented, the president or AG's interpretation is still open to judicial review.
At first glance, it seems like it's a positive thing for all members of the executive branch adhere to the same interpretation of the law. It's the definition of "arbitrary and capricious" if one executive agency interprets the same law differently than another. As others have commented, the president or AG's interpretation is still open to judicial review.
Judicial review won't automatically change the president's mind. And according to this order, executive branch employees must only look at the president's decisions, not at what other branches of government say. Even if a judge issues an injunction against some decision by the president, federal employees acting on that judicial order will be fired for not performing their duty to the president.
The fact that the President was granted that immunity in the first place by a so-called "conservative" Supreme Court should make it abundantly clear that the "conservative" movement fully intends to take it as far in the wrong direction as they feel they need to. The goal? to secure absolute power and therefore a future in which the ultra-wealthy rule America with an iron fist, and dissent can be crushed easily. The techniques are all fascist, but the film Metropolis is the end game, not another Holocaust -- but if a good old genocide helps rally the voter base, then so be it.
Seems like an enormous organizational challenge to even get through the queue of other US gov agency attorneys wanting to know the presidents opinion on just how many ppm of this particulate is allowed per the statute. Such that the new status quo will be no enforcement at all. And maybe that's just fine w this administration.
> Such that the new status quo will be no enforcement at all.
Or conditional enforcement, say for those who don't buy enough Trump meme coin.
Or conditional enforcement, say for those who don't buy enough Trump meme coin.
> It goes against the foundation of not only US law, but couple of hundred years of international democratic tradition in which allegiance is not to a person, but to the nation itself.
Yes. It does.
But there is an older Big Man tradition where loyalty to the nation is indistinguishable from loyalty to the person, the Big Man).
I naively thought that that was a stage that democracies passed through (we see it a lot in the South Pacific - the Big Man.
So sad. So terribly sad. We all like to tease Americans for being this and that, but now it feels like punching down.
Good luck to you all - Dog bless.
Yes. It does.
But there is an older Big Man tradition where loyalty to the nation is indistinguishable from loyalty to the person, the Big Man).
I naively thought that that was a stage that democracies passed through (we see it a lot in the South Pacific - the Big Man.
So sad. So terribly sad. We all like to tease Americans for being this and that, but now it feels like punching down.
Good luck to you all - Dog bless.
fellow Blindboy listener, and/or is "dog bless" common elsewhere, too?
And yeah, it's about time we (I'm from the USA) got off our high horse and accepted we're a collection of humans with cultures, traditions, languages, habits, and messy traumatic history like everywhere else.
And yeah, it's about time we (I'm from the USA) got off our high horse and accepted we're a collection of humans with cultures, traditions, languages, habits, and messy traumatic history like everywhere else.
It’s pretty amazing. A few days ago someone posted a comparison of the oath of allegiance for officers before and after Hitler, and it has basically exactly the same change.
How does this executive order compare to an oath of allegiance?
Seems like a major reach to compare the two unless you are rationalizing backwards.
Seems like a major reach to compare the two unless you are rationalizing backwards.
One can hope…
If the Supreme Court and Congress has no enforcement power, though, what recourse is there?
I know this sounds corny, but people are the recourse. We are part of the checks and balances.
Whether it is as overt as a soldier refusing to follow an illegal order knowing they are risking court marshal, or as clandestine as mid-level bureaucrat slow-walking damaging policies, or people actually voting in local-to-national elections.
Democracy is not a passive form of government.
Whether it is as overt as a soldier refusing to follow an illegal order knowing they are risking court marshal, or as clandestine as mid-level bureaucrat slow-walking damaging policies, or people actually voting in local-to-national elections.
Democracy is not a passive form of government.
I completely agree, which is why I’m very pessimistic about the outlook. I have no faith that the American public is up to the task. It will demand too much discomfort, and sacrifice, while the alternative will ask only that they do nothing.
> I have no faith that the American public is up to the task. It will demand too much discomfort, and sacrifice
More up than many. There is no other way to prevent power grab. You can see it in post-USSR space what happens when there is no push-back from public.
More up than many. There is no other way to prevent power grab. You can see it in post-USSR space what happens when there is no push-back from public.
don't forget that Guatemala had their paro nacional (national strike) a few years ago.
https://apnews.com/article/guatemala-protest-indigenous-giam...
https://apnews.com/article/guatemala-protest-indigenous-giam...
Only recently has it become placid in the US. I expect social media also removes the desires to actually march or do something even louder. If Biden was this busy we'd be hearing a lot more "2nd Amendment!" talk.
as clandestine as mid-level bureaucrat slow-walking damaging policies
Or stealing papers from the President's desk in order to prevent him from signing them.
Or stealing papers from the President's desk in order to prevent him from signing them.
> I know this sounds corny, but people are the recourse. We are part of the checks and balances.
By "we" here, it seems you mean bureaucrats. But what if your opinions, as an individual, unelected bureaucrat are bad? I don't care what a mid-level bureaucrat's opinions on what policies are damaging is. He could be a neo-nazi for all I know. Constitutionally, we should go with the opinions of the people who won an election, instead of some random dude. I was taught that was what "democracy" was, not some random person taking advantage of their position to advance their personal goals.
When the guy paid to guard the door starts making his own decisions about who should get to come in, it's not good. It's corruption.
By "we" here, it seems you mean bureaucrats. But what if your opinions, as an individual, unelected bureaucrat are bad? I don't care what a mid-level bureaucrat's opinions on what policies are damaging is. He could be a neo-nazi for all I know. Constitutionally, we should go with the opinions of the people who won an election, instead of some random dude. I was taught that was what "democracy" was, not some random person taking advantage of their position to advance their personal goals.
When the guy paid to guard the door starts making his own decisions about who should get to come in, it's not good. It's corruption.
> But what if your opinions, as an individual, unelected bureaucrat are bad?
That’s a slightly silly stance to take. Modern developed countries live and die by the quality of their bureaucracy. Making every bureaucratic role an elected position would be insane.
How on earth would you organise elections for every single DMV employee? Or every single park ranger? Or every single government accountant or secretary? Every single civil servant involved in collecting the data used to drive policy decisions.
To get rid of “unelected bureaucrats” you would basically have to turn every federal role into an elected role. The federal government employees around 3 million people, even if we say that only 10% of them are “real unelected bureaucrats”, that’s still 300,000 elections you would need to hold every X number of years. How on earth would anyone ever manage any of that?
Thats before we get to the insanity which is Musk, the epitome of the “unelected bureaucrat” who seems to be the one leading the charge on many of these “policy decisions”, and publicly lambasting “unelected bureaucrats” as being corrupt and “undemocratic”.
That’s a slightly silly stance to take. Modern developed countries live and die by the quality of their bureaucracy. Making every bureaucratic role an elected position would be insane.
How on earth would you organise elections for every single DMV employee? Or every single park ranger? Or every single government accountant or secretary? Every single civil servant involved in collecting the data used to drive policy decisions.
To get rid of “unelected bureaucrats” you would basically have to turn every federal role into an elected role. The federal government employees around 3 million people, even if we say that only 10% of them are “real unelected bureaucrats”, that’s still 300,000 elections you would need to hold every X number of years. How on earth would anyone ever manage any of that?
Thats before we get to the insanity which is Musk, the epitome of the “unelected bureaucrat” who seems to be the one leading the charge on many of these “policy decisions”, and publicly lambasting “unelected bureaucrats” as being corrupt and “undemocratic”.
> How on earth would you organise elections for every single DMV employee? Or every single park ranger? Or every single government accountant or secretary? Every single civil servant involved in collecting the data used to drive policy decisions.
You can't. Which is exactly why the civil service is supposed to impartially implement the policies of the elected government rather than making their own judgements.
IMO the increasing partiality of these bureaucrats (who are drawn from the professional-managerial class and have the views of that class, which are increasingly out of step with those of the average citizen, especially on social issues) was one of the big contributors to Trump getting elected.
You can't. Which is exactly why the civil service is supposed to impartially implement the policies of the elected government rather than making their own judgements.
IMO the increasing partiality of these bureaucrats (who are drawn from the professional-managerial class and have the views of that class, which are increasingly out of step with those of the average citizen, especially on social issues) was one of the big contributors to Trump getting elected.
The policies of the elected government in the United States are decided by the legislative branch, as bills that are passed into law. By ignoring U.S. code, bureaucrats would be violating the U.S. Constitution.
"The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof" - Article 1, §8, United States Constitution.
"The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof" - Article 1, §8, United States Constitution.
> "The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof" - Article 1, §8, United States Constitution.
Don't stop there, carry on and read Article 2: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". Nothing in there about anyone else taking the faithful execution of the laws upon themselves.
Don't stop there, carry on and read Article 2: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". Nothing in there about anyone else taking the faithful execution of the laws upon themselves.
> Nothing in there about anyone else taking the faithful execution of the laws upon themselves.
I agree. Everyone else must follow the law as stated in the U.S Code, as codified by Congress, as stated in article 1, section 8.
I agree. Everyone else must follow the law as stated in the U.S Code, as codified by Congress, as stated in article 1, section 8.
Bit weird to make a fuss about the constitution just to say the law is the law, you make it sound like breaking the ordinary law is unconstitutional.
But yes, everyone has an obligation to follow the law, which is what exactly this EO is about. Federal agencies don't get to pick and choose their own creative interpretations of the law, they have to follow the actual law. The president literally has a constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, and this EO is him doing that.
But yes, everyone has an obligation to follow the law, which is what exactly this EO is about. Federal agencies don't get to pick and choose their own creative interpretations of the law, they have to follow the actual law. The president literally has a constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, and this EO is him doing that.
The EO contradicts the Constitution by declaring that agencies must refer to the President and the Attorney General for all interpretations of the law. This is a novel proposal not rooted in the historical functioning of the federal government.
The government agencies' powers come from the legislature and must follow U.S. Code, derived from the legislature's laws. Agencies hire their own counsel to make guidelines and regulations from U.S. Code.
As a technologist, you have the confidence to interpret the law and the Constitution from your version of reasoning from first principles. However, the Supreme Court and other courts repeatedly disagree with your interpretation, which willfully ignores the first article in favor of the second.
The government agencies' powers come from the legislature and must follow U.S. Code, derived from the legislature's laws. Agencies hire their own counsel to make guidelines and regulations from U.S. Code.
As a technologist, you have the confidence to interpret the law and the Constitution from your version of reasoning from first principles. However, the Supreme Court and other courts repeatedly disagree with your interpretation, which willfully ignores the first article in favor of the second.
So what’s in it for you to give up your rights to a tyrant? Do you really believe that it’s “your team” that’s winning?
Ever tried getting the bureaucracy to acknowledge your rights in practice and do the things they're charged with doing when they've decided you're on the "wrong" side? Yes, I believe "my team" is winning; I haven't lost rights (yet), I've gained them. I worry about the pendulum swinging too far, I wish it hadn't come to this, but there's a whole class of people that have been shamelessly partisan for years, and even now are unrepentant and contemptuous of the people they're supposed to be serving, and that system has shown itself to be unwilling to be reformed. I had hoped that the first Trump presidency would be a wake-up call, that the Dems would finally remember they need to at least pretend to care about the working class, but instead we got more of the same. So here we are.
Wait, are you claiming that an administration currently being advised if not outright directed by the wealthiest man in the world is going to guarantee justice for the working class? Do you realize how that sounds?
Do you think massively cutting government grants that go to all kinds of social services in order to pay for 4.5T in tax cuts that mainly go to the wealthy, is going to help the working class?
Moreover, inter-term government workers are hired to be explicitly non-partisan. You want them to be non-partisan in order to guarantee continuity of government between administrations and to enforce the law as determined by the courts, non-politically. This is what actually guarantees your rights under the constitution. The minute you introduce political bias into this process is when you begin to deviate from the rule of law and actually abridge peoples’ rights.
And I’m sorry, but your “team” is going to have to face a reckoning if they continue to take power unconstitutionally. That abridges my rights as a citizen of the republic and forfeits their mandate to rule. We will all have the moral right and duty to use force if necessary against any politician who upholds this illiberal order. I hope you like violence, because that’s what you’re asking for.
Do you think massively cutting government grants that go to all kinds of social services in order to pay for 4.5T in tax cuts that mainly go to the wealthy, is going to help the working class?
Moreover, inter-term government workers are hired to be explicitly non-partisan. You want them to be non-partisan in order to guarantee continuity of government between administrations and to enforce the law as determined by the courts, non-politically. This is what actually guarantees your rights under the constitution. The minute you introduce political bias into this process is when you begin to deviate from the rule of law and actually abridge peoples’ rights.
And I’m sorry, but your “team” is going to have to face a reckoning if they continue to take power unconstitutionally. That abridges my rights as a citizen of the republic and forfeits their mandate to rule. We will all have the moral right and duty to use force if necessary against any politician who upholds this illiberal order. I hope you like violence, because that’s what you’re asking for.
> which are increasingly out of step with those of the average citizen, especially on social issues
They've always been out of touch in the same way they are now. They just used to align more closely with your own political beliefs.
They've always been out of touch in the same way they are now. They just used to align more closely with your own political beliefs.
I don't think that's entirely true. We used to have much more social mobility back when it was legal to e.g. build your own house. These kind of government jobs didn't always require a degree (and getting a degree didn't always require generational wealth). And there was a dramatic increase in class polarisation on social issues post-Occupy Wall Street.
How about this:
Individuals with appointment power attach appointees to their ticket like vice presidents. You get the option to write in anyone, but the tickets are defaults.
Individuals with appointment power attach appointees to their ticket like vice presidents. You get the option to write in anyone, but the tickets are defaults.
How does that solve the “unelected bureaucrat” problem? You still need bureaucrats to run a civil service, the appointed positions in U.S. institutions are mostly just figureheads, they’re not handling the day-to-day work of keeping a bureaucracy functioning.
Unless you’re suggesting that every bureaucrat role should be an appointment, and part of X years elections, is having people with appointment powers turning up with a list of 300,000-3,000,000 people to fill every bureaucratic role, and somehow the general public are going to scrutinise that in some meaningful manner.
All of that is of course ignoring the problem that comes with throwing away all of your bureaucracies institutional knowledge every X number of years. Do you really want the issuance of driving licences, fishing licenses, gun licenses, international visas, customs enforcement, immigration enforcement, to all grind to a holt every 3-5 years while the new folks figure out how stuff works? You would basically end up with a bureaucracy that fundamentally couldn’t achieve anything, and silly things like the rule-of-law would simply cease to exist in the U.S.
Why would anyone want to trade with, invest in, or ally with, a country that effectively lobotomises its government every few years, and has zero continuity of governance at even the most basic day-to-day items of modern life?
Unless you’re suggesting that every bureaucrat role should be an appointment, and part of X years elections, is having people with appointment powers turning up with a list of 300,000-3,000,000 people to fill every bureaucratic role, and somehow the general public are going to scrutinise that in some meaningful manner.
All of that is of course ignoring the problem that comes with throwing away all of your bureaucracies institutional knowledge every X number of years. Do you really want the issuance of driving licences, fishing licenses, gun licenses, international visas, customs enforcement, immigration enforcement, to all grind to a holt every 3-5 years while the new folks figure out how stuff works? You would basically end up with a bureaucracy that fundamentally couldn’t achieve anything, and silly things like the rule-of-law would simply cease to exist in the U.S.
Why would anyone want to trade with, invest in, or ally with, a country that effectively lobotomises its government every few years, and has zero continuity of governance at even the most basic day-to-day items of modern life?
It seems that russians owned the US ideologically this time, by selling both anarchism and authiritarism at the same time.
God bless our world now, as the change is coming and it will not be pretty
God bless our world now, as the change is coming and it will not be pretty
I read that as an all-inclusive "we" and not so narrow as "bureaucrats". The examples given are not exhaustive, if you have an imsgination.
There are many ways to fight for what you believe in. Look up mutual aid, participatory democracy, and the histories of women's suffrage and the fight in the USA for equal rights for Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color (that fight is nowhere near over).
Start with loving yourself, extent that to others, and if you feel like you're teetering, lean on others and find your balance again.
If I'm the guy guarding the door (and I have been), I damn well make my own decisions to the best of my ability, to where I would be willing to explain the what and why of my actions.
If I'm the guy guarding the door (and I have been), I damn well make my own decisions to the best of my ability, to where I would be willing to explain the what and why of my actions.
>Constitutionally, we should go with the opinions of the people who won an election
That’s literally not how the constitution has ever worked.
That’s literally not how the constitution has ever worked.
Which unelected bureaucrats do you consider to have the power and leeway to make policy according to their personal goals, such that making them follow the President rather than the courts' interpretation of the law is the better option?
… oh boy, if you think that mid level bureaucrat might be a neo-nazi I might have some bad news for you about the highest level bureaucrats currently running your country..
You’re right. But if the guy paid to guard the door is told to start letting gangsters in by management, whistleblowing and civil disobedience become championed by the public rather than condemned, that’s “the people’s” check and balance to power. I don’t think we should legally protect the guard’s right to disobey orders, but we MUST protect the guard’s right to protest publicly.
> I don’t think we should legally protect the guard’s right to disobey orders, but we MUST protect the guard’s right to protest publicly.
That's already protected and the executive order doesn't claim otherwise.
>> No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance [...]
That's already protected and the executive order doesn't claim otherwise.
>> No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance [...]
Ask yourself: what's the difference between the SEC saying, "We declare that Facebook broke a securities law and shall now be fined $1M" and Trump saying, "I decree that the SEC declare that Facebook broke a securities law and shall now be fined $1M"? Either of those could be true or false. Either could be politically motivated. Either could hold up in court or be struck down. So what's the difference?
One[0] answer is, the former was vetted by someone knowledgeable and (at least allegedly) non-partisan who had the power to stop it if it was wrong. That's it. If the president really wants to fine Facebook he can - he can replace the SEC Director with the "My Pillow" guy if he wants, who can replace SEC employees with randomly chosen members MAGA types until the desired fine is eventually issued - but at least going through the bureaucracy confers the possibility of impartial and informed oversight. Vesting the power with the president directly doesn't do that; presidents are biased and partisan by design.
0: Another answer is the SEC has been granted the power to do that by Congress and the president has not; but I get that people on the "unitary executive" train disregard this, and
One[0] answer is, the former was vetted by someone knowledgeable and (at least allegedly) non-partisan who had the power to stop it if it was wrong. That's it. If the president really wants to fine Facebook he can - he can replace the SEC Director with the "My Pillow" guy if he wants, who can replace SEC employees with randomly chosen members MAGA types until the desired fine is eventually issued - but at least going through the bureaucracy confers the possibility of impartial and informed oversight. Vesting the power with the president directly doesn't do that; presidents are biased and partisan by design.
0: Another answer is the SEC has been granted the power to do that by Congress and the president has not; but I get that people on the "unitary executive" train disregard this, and
Protest and revolt. Government for the people and by the people
A majority of Americans voted for Trump. There was a pollster who was on CNN a day or two ago who looked into people who voted for Clinton and Biden in 2016 and 2020, but then for Trump in 2024. These people were (of course generally speaking) happy with Trump's performace so far this term. There frustration with the Democrats was what they perceived as a lack of action, and they see Trump as "moving fast".
It's clear the American people (again, majority speaking - I mean, I certainly care) don't care about what is going on with the federal government right now. The only thing that will make them care is if the economy tanks or if inflation spirals out of control.
It's clear the American people (again, majority speaking - I mean, I certainly care) don't care about what is going on with the federal government right now. The only thing that will make them care is if the economy tanks or if inflation spirals out of control.
> A majority of Americans voted for Trump
22.73% of Americans voted for Trump.
22.06% of Americans voted for Harris.
22.73% of Americans voted for Trump.
22.06% of Americans voted for Harris.
I wish Trump wasn't able to act like he has a huge massive sea change mandate, when he only won by 1%
> A majority of Americans voted for Trump
Not true. A majority of the Americans who chose to vote voted for Trump.
Not true. A majority of the Americans who chose to vote voted for Trump.
Who chose to vote and who were not prevented from voting.
> Not true. A majority of the Americans who chose to vote voted for Trump.
Not true. A plurality of the Americans who chose to vote voted for Trump. Trump: 49.8% Harris: 48.3%
Not true. A plurality of the Americans who chose to vote voted for Trump. Trump: 49.8% Harris: 48.3%
Congress has all the enforcement power, they can impeach the president whenever they want. Will they? I don't know, he's already gone so far in constitutional overreach that he's making Nixon blush.
Judiciary has more power than you'd think too. It's just that they try to act in good faith and generally do not want to throw people into civil contempt that often. The SCOTUS can even re-re-interpret the presidential immunity that Trump has abused to a pulp if they are angry enough. That was their call after all.
Will they do this? Highly unlikely, at least for Trump. I wouldn't be surprised if Musk flies too close to the sun, however.
Judiciary has more power than you'd think too. It's just that they try to act in good faith and generally do not want to throw people into civil contempt that often. The SCOTUS can even re-re-interpret the presidential immunity that Trump has abused to a pulp if they are angry enough. That was their call after all.
Will they do this? Highly unlikely, at least for Trump. I wouldn't be surprised if Musk flies too close to the sun, however.
> Congress has all the enforcement power, they can impeach the president whenever they want.
<Sad clown laughing noises>
Regarding the power of the judiciary in this, Trump's team is arguing right now before the Supreme Court that the judiciary has no power to constrain the President's power when he's acting solely within the Executive branch (which is basically all the time...) Oh, and as part of that filing he reminded the Supreme Court that they just granted him full immunity from prosecution.
For the cherry on the cake, the official Whitehouse X account tweeted out "GOD SAVE THE KING" with a picture of Trump with a crown on his head (I thought this was fake when I first saw it).
Sorry, the Republic is toast.
<Sad clown laughing noises>
Regarding the power of the judiciary in this, Trump's team is arguing right now before the Supreme Court that the judiciary has no power to constrain the President's power when he's acting solely within the Executive branch (which is basically all the time...) Oh, and as part of that filing he reminded the Supreme Court that they just granted him full immunity from prosecution.
For the cherry on the cake, the official Whitehouse X account tweeted out "GOD SAVE THE KING" with a picture of Trump with a crown on his head (I thought this was fake when I first saw it).
Sorry, the Republic is toast.
Okay, that's not even the craziest argument the judiciary has gotten. They'll just smash it down like everything else. If he ignores that, the court can escalate. Which is unprecedented for such office, but well in their powers. They can easily reinterpret presidential immunity as well in light of this entire month so that isn't really his protection.
>Sorry, the Republic is toast.
So what's your next action in life?
>Sorry, the Republic is toast.
So what's your next action in life?
> So what's your next action in life?
Live it? There are plenty of people who live under dictatorships. I wasn't planning on being one of them, but perhaps this is what it was like in the Roman Republic at the transition to dictatorship.
Live it? There are plenty of people who live under dictatorships. I wasn't planning on being one of them, but perhaps this is what it was like in the Roman Republic at the transition to dictatorship.
>There are plenty of people who live under dictatorships.
Interesting decision. Unfortunately I am a minority and I don't like my survival nor QoL odds. Not even in California. so I am slowly looking into figuring out what EU country would mesh best with me should the worst happen. I don't think Canada will be far enough and I don't think their immigration sentiments will calm down in the next few years.
Heck, maybe I learn enough Japanese in the next few years and put up with more discrimination in Japan if I'm let in. Fits better with my career overall if I can get hired there.
Interesting decision. Unfortunately I am a minority and I don't like my survival nor QoL odds. Not even in California. so I am slowly looking into figuring out what EU country would mesh best with me should the worst happen. I don't think Canada will be far enough and I don't think their immigration sentiments will calm down in the next few years.
Heck, maybe I learn enough Japanese in the next few years and put up with more discrimination in Japan if I'm let in. Fits better with my career overall if I can get hired there.
What gives you any confidence that the SC will not like that argument? The Presidential immunity decision was already crazy cookoo land, they've already shown they're lackeys of Trump first and judges only second.
I explained it above, not quite sure how I can add more context. I can add that the court stacking isn't too unanimous and that it just takes 2 judges being pissed off to shift the entire dynamic. Compared to something like 19 GOP senators.
But yes, we're in unprecedented times and maybe SCOTUS will lock step over it. It's sad that I can't say with confidence that judges will respect the first article of the constitution.
>The Presidential immunity decision was already crazy cookoo land
It has a semblance of sense in a good faith governmental system. You don't want a president punished for their hard decisions in office.
Now with context: it's stupid because so many of his actions happened before he was president. At the very best, he maybe would have been excused for the Jan 6th riots. Trump should indeed be in jail, even before dissecting this month of of a circus.
But yes, we're in unprecedented times and maybe SCOTUS will lock step over it. It's sad that I can't say with confidence that judges will respect the first article of the constitution.
>The Presidential immunity decision was already crazy cookoo land
It has a semblance of sense in a good faith governmental system. You don't want a president punished for their hard decisions in office.
Now with context: it's stupid because so many of his actions happened before he was president. At the very best, he maybe would have been excused for the Jan 6th riots. Trump should indeed be in jail, even before dissecting this month of of a circus.
> It has a semblance of sense in a good faith governmental system. You don't want a president punished for their hard decisions in office.
I completely disagree, this is a very ahistorical take. The reality is that not a single US president has ever faced a single legal consequence for a decision they took while in office, for over two hundred years.
But, the possibility has always existed, as a check on the powers of the president. Parts of the decision making process for any president have always been "is there a chance this might put me in jail later?". The Supreme Court decided that's done. They have explicitly acquiesced that the president may order Seal Team 6 to assassinate the opposition leader, and the courts would have no right to condemn them for that (if the president pulled out a gun and shot the opposition leader themselves, there might be a trial, since it could be argued this wasn't an official act as presidnet, it was a personal act of the person holding the office; but that would still have to be settled in court before any kind of evidence or injunction against the president would be allowed on the shooting charge).
I completely disagree, this is a very ahistorical take. The reality is that not a single US president has ever faced a single legal consequence for a decision they took while in office, for over two hundred years.
But, the possibility has always existed, as a check on the powers of the president. Parts of the decision making process for any president have always been "is there a chance this might put me in jail later?". The Supreme Court decided that's done. They have explicitly acquiesced that the president may order Seal Team 6 to assassinate the opposition leader, and the courts would have no right to condemn them for that (if the president pulled out a gun and shot the opposition leader themselves, there might be a trial, since it could be argued this wasn't an official act as presidnet, it was a personal act of the person holding the office; but that would still have to be settled in court before any kind of evidence or injunction against the president would be allowed on the shooting charge).
> Will they do this?
so the question is why?
The point about what they're legally allowed to do, and could do, is moot, if there's no will.
so the question is why?
The point about what they're legally allowed to do, and could do, is moot, if there's no will.
Judiciary is easy. They don't want to take drastic actions unless absolutely pushed. The entire idea is to be meticulous and try to avoid the political climate when making judgement. They are taking action but they havent taken their gloves off yet.
Congressional's reasons: your guess is as good as mine. Their majorities aren't that wide. moving 3 senators can affect policy, moving half the senators can get an impeachment trial. We'll see how things proceed there.
Congressional's reasons: your guess is as good as mine. Their majorities aren't that wide. moving 3 senators can affect policy, moving half the senators can get an impeachment trial. We'll see how things proceed there.
I think this is what the second amendment was about
> If the Supreme Court and Congress has no enforcement power, though, what recourse is there?
While maybe not practical for the president, but at least for various cabinet Secretaries or Directors: if they do not follow court-issued orders could be found in contempt and jailed until the corrective orders are implemented?
While maybe not practical for the president, but at least for various cabinet Secretaries or Directors: if they do not follow court-issued orders could be found in contempt and jailed until the corrective orders are implemented?
Trump's new doctrine is that all employees of the executive branch, such as federal police, must take his interpretation of the law as correct. So if a court ordered that the Secretary of State be jailed, Trump can issue a memo saying "the Executive Branch interprets this legal decision as meaning that the Secretary of State should not be jailed", then any federal police officer or agency head has to comply with the official interpretation of the president or be fired.
Jailed by whom? Trump controls the executive branch.
sic semper tyrannis
Hopefully we never get there. But America should suffer no kings.
Like this guy, tweeted out by the official Whitehouse X account? https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/1892295984928993698
This executive order just brought us there.
This could be construed as a threat, given they were the words of Lincoln's assassin.
pessimizer(1)
Ostensibly, this EO is meant to remove power from bureaucratically controlled agencies in the government. The right have been complaining that real power has been usurped from the institutions mentioned in the constitution, and centered in a professional managerial class, that works below the surface, and has no culpability or exposure to voters.
That's all massively up for debate obviously, but this EO seems to be aimed square at that "problem".
That's all massively up for debate obviously, but this EO seems to be aimed square at that "problem".
Those agencies were created by law and given a command by law to fulfill a role in the executive branch. The executive branch doesn't get to decide how to organize itself since that would make a mess when the next guy comes up, so laws are there to make sure the structure is kept in a _continuity of the state_, such that just because the head changes, not everything needs to change. You could argue all you want about that, but stability is a desire feature of the state. It not only helps citizens to be able to have long term planning, but also saves the resources by not needing to figure out how things work constantly.
Some amount of stability is desirable, but not an infinite amount. A certain amount of creative destruction is necessary to avoid regulatory/ideological/bureaucratic/oligarchic capture. A completely stable system will fall to the iron law of bureaucracy.
>A certain amount of creative destruction is necessary...
This sounds truthy and even casts instability as somehow heroic, but it's an oversimplification and hides similar fallacies. It also implies that instability for the sake of instability is default-positive.
The best way to avoid capture is via law / regulation. There should be term limits, campaign finance reform, more regulation against lobbyists and the revolving door, etc. We can't have Citizens United then wonder how capture happened. And, no amount of instability will address that.
In fact, instability in this environment can serve as cover for increased capture, as there is no bulwark against reassignment of winners. This is likely what we're seeing with Musk right now.
Stability here doesn't mean nothing changes. It means things change in an orderly, reasoned manner to include thoughtfully preventing capture.
This sounds truthy and even casts instability as somehow heroic, but it's an oversimplification and hides similar fallacies. It also implies that instability for the sake of instability is default-positive.
The best way to avoid capture is via law / regulation. There should be term limits, campaign finance reform, more regulation against lobbyists and the revolving door, etc. We can't have Citizens United then wonder how capture happened. And, no amount of instability will address that.
In fact, instability in this environment can serve as cover for increased capture, as there is no bulwark against reassignment of winners. This is likely what we're seeing with Musk right now.
Stability here doesn't mean nothing changes. It means things change in an orderly, reasoned manner to include thoughtfully preventing capture.
> The best way to avoid capture is via law / regulation. There should be term limits, campaign finance reform, more regulation against lobbyists and the revolving door, etc. We can't have Citizens United then wonder how capture happened. And, no amount of instability will address that.
On the contrary. We tried to reform and improve the system through the normal channels for decades. We failed. The system is evidently already captured and something a little more radical is warranted.
On the contrary. We tried to reform and improve the system through the normal channels for decades. We failed. The system is evidently already captured and something a little more radical is warranted.
>On the contrary. We tried to reform and improve the system through the normal channels for decades
Did we though? I don't remember the last time campaign finance reform was on the national ballot or lobbying regulation or term limits. People aren't even talking about it.
The problem is that the majority of the voting public is easily distracted and not clamoring for these things that can bring about constructive change.
But, that distraction is not random. The people who push for and benefit most from this distraction (and subsequent failure to change) happen to also do things like donate $250M+ to help buy a president, then convince followers that something "a little more radical" is needed to help seal the deal.
Oh, and they happen to also have billions in government contracts.
But, they are eliminating capture? If ever there was a fox guarding the henhouse. "The Onion" couldn't make this up.
Did we though? I don't remember the last time campaign finance reform was on the national ballot or lobbying regulation or term limits. People aren't even talking about it.
The problem is that the majority of the voting public is easily distracted and not clamoring for these things that can bring about constructive change.
But, that distraction is not random. The people who push for and benefit most from this distraction (and subsequent failure to change) happen to also do things like donate $250M+ to help buy a president, then convince followers that something "a little more radical" is needed to help seal the deal.
Oh, and they happen to also have billions in government contracts.
But, they are eliminating capture? If ever there was a fox guarding the henhouse. "The Onion" couldn't make this up.
Without agreeing or disagreeing with you, that's irrelevant. The law is the law. If it specifies that a particular agency must exist, and how it should function, then that's what the executive is required to implement.
In theory, at least. If Trump and his minions decide to do something else, there isn't really anyone with the power to stop him, absent impeachment.
In theory, at least. If Trump and his minions decide to do something else, there isn't really anyone with the power to stop him, absent impeachment.
I was replying to someone who said "You could argue all you want about that, but stability is a desire feature of the state. It not only helps citizens to be able to have long term planning, but also saves the resources by not needing to figure out how things work constantly."
Legal questions aside, I think that's an overly simplistic take; a certain amount of stability is desirable, but it's possible to be too stable as well as too unstable.
Legal questions aside, I think that's an overly simplistic take; a certain amount of stability is desirable, but it's possible to be too stable as well as too unstable.
The stability here comes from not having to wonder what the next guy is going to do wrt taxes, etc. because those need to pass a process that would be public in congress. Stability doesn't mean staleness. It means that things don't change willy nilly.
Right, and that level of process allows a certain amount of capture and exploitation. E.g. companies will game the tax code in the confidence that they'll get plenty of warning before any loopholes are closed. It's hard to imagine the 2017 change to how corporate repatriated income is taxed happening under any other president, and that rule change not only collected a bunch of revenue from companies that had been engaging in tax avoidance schemes, but also burned them enough to deter that kind of gamesmanship, at least for a couple of years.
Yes, and as a harmless side effect also ensures Trump's word is law.
Right, on its face this is simply more of the "drain the swamp" rhetoric from his first term. The way the EO is written sounds "fine" to my high school civics ears: there's three branches of government, one is the executive branch, and ostensibly the president is the head of that branch.
The motivation of the EO was clearly articulated all throughout the campaign that, as you say, even within the executive branch there's a large swath of career bureaucrats who kind of do their own thing. And so if the people vote for something else, there's kind of a limit to what any new administration can actually accomplish. Arguably, this is by design and provides valuable stability, but I think you have to at least acknowledge that it's there, and people aren't crazy for noticing it and trying to change that if the career bureaucrats aren't actually on their side.
I thought Trump was laughably ineffective his first time around. I chalked it up to all the Russia Manchurian Candidate stuff and Trump's constant flailing and hiring and firing of staff. But I'm wondering now how much of it really was this large bureaucracy in the executive branch not really moving in step with the new administration, which is interesting to me. I think there was a JD Vance interview (maybe with Ross Douthat in NYTimes?) where he says people throw around "constitutional crisis" a lot, but that he felt we were already in one because Trump was asking the generals stuff about troops in Afghanistan and they weren't answering.
I know people here are primed to read the worst into everything, and there's some seriously apocalyptic predictions in this discussion. But my first impression is that the EO reads fairly mundanely and is meant to sound like it's addressing the "hostile bureaucracy" situation that folks on the right have been talking about for years. I guess we'll see in a couple years, how it all plays out. I wish people predicted stuff more and then looked back to calibrate themselves based on the results.
The motivation of the EO was clearly articulated all throughout the campaign that, as you say, even within the executive branch there's a large swath of career bureaucrats who kind of do their own thing. And so if the people vote for something else, there's kind of a limit to what any new administration can actually accomplish. Arguably, this is by design and provides valuable stability, but I think you have to at least acknowledge that it's there, and people aren't crazy for noticing it and trying to change that if the career bureaucrats aren't actually on their side.
I thought Trump was laughably ineffective his first time around. I chalked it up to all the Russia Manchurian Candidate stuff and Trump's constant flailing and hiring and firing of staff. But I'm wondering now how much of it really was this large bureaucracy in the executive branch not really moving in step with the new administration, which is interesting to me. I think there was a JD Vance interview (maybe with Ross Douthat in NYTimes?) where he says people throw around "constitutional crisis" a lot, but that he felt we were already in one because Trump was asking the generals stuff about troops in Afghanistan and they weren't answering.
I know people here are primed to read the worst into everything, and there's some seriously apocalyptic predictions in this discussion. But my first impression is that the EO reads fairly mundanely and is meant to sound like it's addressing the "hostile bureaucracy" situation that folks on the right have been talking about for years. I guess we'll see in a couple years, how it all plays out. I wish people predicted stuff more and then looked back to calibrate themselves based on the results.
> The way the EO is written sounds "fine" to my high school civics ears: there's three branches of government, one is the executive branch, and ostensibly the president is the head of that branch.
Then maybe you need to get an understanding of human organizations in general and the US government in particular that goes beyond your high school civics days.
The president has no power or authority to interpret the law, not beyond the implicit power of every citizen to interpret the law for themsleves. The president has the power and authority to execute the law as written, mostly by appointing other people to do so in specific areas. The power to choose those specific people is already huge, directing their every move is neither needed nor desirable.
There are literally tens of thousands of laws, if not hundreds of thousands (when including regulations and binding court precedents) that need to be followed by the federal government. The president simply can't be an authority on all of them, it's not even remotely close to humanly possible.
Not to mention, very tight, military-style control is a a horrible feature. The President may get to command the army, but they are not commander-in-chief of the executive branch, civilian agencies don't and mustn't work that way. Government employees must uphold the law, and fulfill the role of their position. If they're not following the law, they should be fired, and a court may get involved to reach this conclusion. The president doesn't get to dictate what the law is and fire government employees who are upholding the law instead of the president's interpretation of the law.
Then maybe you need to get an understanding of human organizations in general and the US government in particular that goes beyond your high school civics days.
The president has no power or authority to interpret the law, not beyond the implicit power of every citizen to interpret the law for themsleves. The president has the power and authority to execute the law as written, mostly by appointing other people to do so in specific areas. The power to choose those specific people is already huge, directing their every move is neither needed nor desirable.
There are literally tens of thousands of laws, if not hundreds of thousands (when including regulations and binding court precedents) that need to be followed by the federal government. The president simply can't be an authority on all of them, it's not even remotely close to humanly possible.
Not to mention, very tight, military-style control is a a horrible feature. The President may get to command the army, but they are not commander-in-chief of the executive branch, civilian agencies don't and mustn't work that way. Government employees must uphold the law, and fulfill the role of their position. If they're not following the law, they should be fired, and a court may get involved to reach this conclusion. The president doesn't get to dictate what the law is and fire government employees who are upholding the law instead of the president's interpretation of the law.
[deleted]
My prediction was that Trump would abandon the Ukrainians and suck up to Putin, and as of today that's right on target. This calibration exercise is not reassuring at all.
Huge swathes of the country do not want to be involved in Ukraine. Positioning this as “sucking up to Putin” seems intentionally inflammatory.
Huge swaths of the country didn't want to be involved in WW1 and WW2 either. Look how well that worked out.
I’m not sure that I follow. I could say the same about Vietnam and Afghanistan. The situation in both world wars was materially different.
You could ask "Is Putin more like Hitler or is Putin more like Ho Chi Minh?"
Putin does not try to hide the fact that he wants to restore the Russian empire and reconquer the former soviet bloc - a group of peoples who want nothing to do with him.
Ho Chi Minh wanted an independent Vietnam, got it, and never really expanded from there.
We either help the Ukranians stop Putin now or we fight a much bigger fight later. Hitler could have easily been stopped at the Rhineland, or at Czechoslovakia. But instead we got "Peace for our time".
Putin does not try to hide the fact that he wants to restore the Russian empire and reconquer the former soviet bloc - a group of peoples who want nothing to do with him.
Ho Chi Minh wanted an independent Vietnam, got it, and never really expanded from there.
We either help the Ukranians stop Putin now or we fight a much bigger fight later. Hitler could have easily been stopped at the Rhineland, or at Czechoslovakia. But instead we got "Peace for our time".
>setting up the president as the sole power center is an inherently unstable system.
But that is what the Constitution specifies (Article II Section 1):
> The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
I find it funny people either don't know this or are intentionally ignoring it. The entire power is vested in one person, who can delegate the enforcement of it to lower officers.
> Nothing prevents the next president from having a radically different opinion. There is a very good reason why the founding fathers built in an elaborate system of checks and balances.
Right, thats why they included a legislative branch and a judicial branch. The problem is the legislative branch delegated much of what it does to the executive, and the judicial said it was okay.
But that is what the Constitution specifies (Article II Section 1):
> The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
I find it funny people either don't know this or are intentionally ignoring it. The entire power is vested in one person, who can delegate the enforcement of it to lower officers.
> Nothing prevents the next president from having a radically different opinion. There is a very good reason why the founding fathers built in an elaborate system of checks and balances.
Right, thats why they included a legislative branch and a judicial branch. The problem is the legislative branch delegated much of what it does to the executive, and the judicial said it was okay.
All three branches of the government are beholden to the Constitution as a whole, and to each other based on the Constitutional roles and their expressions of their roles.
All government actors individually are also responsible to the Constitution and its expression by all three branches first, before any loyalty to anyone else. In the same branch or not.
Even before the current top office holders of the executive branch, congressional majorities, or Supreme Court justices.
Saying that a President’s personal interpretation of Congress’ laws or the courts precedence, completely overrides any individual executive employees good faith understanding and responsibility to the Constitution, laws, and judicial rulings is madness.
There will be disagreements within a branch that will need to be worked out. The president certainly has more power and deserves special respect. But his helpers must stand firm with the constitution first.
Settling Constitutional level disagreements within a branch is a desirable process. The president, and all government actors, need pushback when they start running into the weeds, and vetting when their take seems Constitutionally risky or outright invalid. Taking into full account all valid standing orders, laws and rulings.
The Presidents most important advisors are subject to Senate approval precisely because they are supposed to be loyal to the Constitution and laws first.
If the president says he believes arresting disagreeable members of the Supreme Court is Constitutionally supported because yadda, yadda, yadda, you don’t do it.
If the President directs the Vice President not to certify an election, because he interprets that role as active and worthy of pauses and delays to settle issues the President deems Constitutionslly important during an election…
But you the Vice President, after careful thought and consultation believe your role is ceremonial, you fulfill the ceremony.
All government actors individually are also responsible to the Constitution and its expression by all three branches first, before any loyalty to anyone else. In the same branch or not.
Even before the current top office holders of the executive branch, congressional majorities, or Supreme Court justices.
Saying that a President’s personal interpretation of Congress’ laws or the courts precedence, completely overrides any individual executive employees good faith understanding and responsibility to the Constitution, laws, and judicial rulings is madness.
There will be disagreements within a branch that will need to be worked out. The president certainly has more power and deserves special respect. But his helpers must stand firm with the constitution first.
Settling Constitutional level disagreements within a branch is a desirable process. The president, and all government actors, need pushback when they start running into the weeds, and vetting when their take seems Constitutionally risky or outright invalid. Taking into full account all valid standing orders, laws and rulings.
The Presidents most important advisors are subject to Senate approval precisely because they are supposed to be loyal to the Constitution and laws first.
If the president says he believes arresting disagreeable members of the Supreme Court is Constitutionally supported because yadda, yadda, yadda, you don’t do it.
If the President directs the Vice President not to certify an election, because he interprets that role as active and worthy of pauses and delays to settle issues the President deems Constitutionslly important during an election…
But you the Vice President, after careful thought and consultation believe your role is ceremonial, you fulfill the ceremony.
> Saying that a President’s personal interpretation of Congress’ laws or the courts precedence, completely overrides any individual executive employees good faith understanding and responsibility to the Constitution, laws, and judicial rulings is madness.
But it's not madness based on the intended structure of government? The EO isn't saying "ignore Constitutional violations". It wouldn't be valid if it did.
If Congress passes a law that say "tobacco is banned", and the US President says "I will direct my agencies to follow this new law" and you have agencies saying "I'm not a lawyer, but I feel like this law is unconstitutional so my agency is not going to follow it!"?
How would the government even function if you have 100 agencies with 50 of them having the power to come up with their own interpretation of the law? How is that even workable as a branch of government?
The executive branch of government is more accurately viewed as a monolithic organization which derives 100% of it's authority by delegation from the US President. This is why the president personally selects the heads of each agency (with the Senate approving). Authority moves down from the president all the way to the most junior government employee - they are acting on behalf of the president.
> There will be disagreements within a branch that will need to be worked out.
What does "worked out" mean?
For legal issues the President will consult the US attorney general. If it's complex, the DOJ might create a white paper determining the constitutionality of a law or not.
To have an agency head disagree with that determination seems like a rogue agency. Why would that agency head know better than the attorney general?
But it's not madness based on the intended structure of government? The EO isn't saying "ignore Constitutional violations". It wouldn't be valid if it did.
If Congress passes a law that say "tobacco is banned", and the US President says "I will direct my agencies to follow this new law" and you have agencies saying "I'm not a lawyer, but I feel like this law is unconstitutional so my agency is not going to follow it!"?
How would the government even function if you have 100 agencies with 50 of them having the power to come up with their own interpretation of the law? How is that even workable as a branch of government?
The executive branch of government is more accurately viewed as a monolithic organization which derives 100% of it's authority by delegation from the US President. This is why the president personally selects the heads of each agency (with the Senate approving). Authority moves down from the president all the way to the most junior government employee - they are acting on behalf of the president.
> There will be disagreements within a branch that will need to be worked out.
What does "worked out" mean?
For legal issues the President will consult the US attorney general. If it's complex, the DOJ might create a white paper determining the constitutionality of a law or not.
To have an agency head disagree with that determination seems like a rogue agency. Why would that agency head know better than the attorney general?
> If Congress passes a law that say "tobacco is banned", and the US President says "I will direct my agencies to follow this new law" and you have agencies saying "I'm not a lawyer, but I feel like this law is unconstitutional so my agency is not going to follow it!"?
Now if Congress passes a law that say "tobacco is banned", the president can say "This law means that tobacco isn't banned and has to be sold in schools, and I will direct my agencies to follow this new law". Before, the president had the option to refuse to enforce the laws as written (and risk getting thrown out on his ass) and now the president has the option to rewrite laws according to his whim and enforce that instead. He also has immunity too so he can't even get into trouble for just doing whatever he wants.
Now if Congress passes a law that say "tobacco is banned", the president can say "This law means that tobacco isn't banned and has to be sold in schools, and I will direct my agencies to follow this new law". Before, the president had the option to refuse to enforce the laws as written (and risk getting thrown out on his ass) and now the president has the option to rewrite laws according to his whim and enforce that instead. He also has immunity too so he can't even get into trouble for just doing whatever he wants.
Every citizen in a democracy has a duty to understand, respect, and uphold the law and the constitution. Congress defines what the law is, the judiciary adjudicates disputes on how the law should be interpreted, and the president can only execute that law. But all federal employees have their own duty to understand and uphold the law. The president has no special power to interpret the law: the law is what it is, and perhaps what the courts clarify.
An agency head that is disobeying the law can be fired by the president. An agency head who is not disobeying the law can't be fired (assuming there is no other cause, such as poor management, of course). If there is disagreement on whether the agency head was upholding the law or not, that's not up to the president, it's up to the courts to decide.
Having the president be the ultimate authority on the interpretation of every law and regulation, even within the executive branch, is not only unconstitutional, but also unworkable. A single man can't physically review every single aspect of the American government, they have neither the time nor the mental capacity to be the ultimate authority on every single aspect of the federal government.
So not only is it normal that the president defers to agency heads on the interpretation of the applicable law that they are experts in, it is the only way the system can function. The president has plenty of control over the agency by naming the head, they don't need and can't have more control than that.
An agency head that is disobeying the law can be fired by the president. An agency head who is not disobeying the law can't be fired (assuming there is no other cause, such as poor management, of course). If there is disagreement on whether the agency head was upholding the law or not, that's not up to the president, it's up to the courts to decide.
Having the president be the ultimate authority on the interpretation of every law and regulation, even within the executive branch, is not only unconstitutional, but also unworkable. A single man can't physically review every single aspect of the American government, they have neither the time nor the mental capacity to be the ultimate authority on every single aspect of the federal government.
So not only is it normal that the president defers to agency heads on the interpretation of the applicable law that they are experts in, it is the only way the system can function. The president has plenty of control over the agency by naming the head, they don't need and can't have more control than that.
> So not only is it normal that the president defers to agency heads on the interpretation of the applicable law that they are experts in, it is the only way the system can function.
[Emphasis mine.]
Yes, well said. This is the ultimate bottom line argument!
The Constitution might as well not exist if individual actors with expertise the President does not have, are not expected to put their specialized understanding of previous orders, laws and precedent (and reality!!!) ahead of who they report to.
[Emphasis mine.]
Yes, well said. This is the ultimate bottom line argument!
The Constitution might as well not exist if individual actors with expertise the President does not have, are not expected to put their specialized understanding of previous orders, laws and precedent (and reality!!!) ahead of who they report to.
> The EO isn't saying "ignore Constitutional violations".
What if the President says "I interpret [irrefutably unconstitutional action x] to not be in violation of the constitution"? Then anyone in the executive branch has to behave as though that action were constitutional, no matter what it is, don't they?
What if the President says "I interpret [irrefutably unconstitutional action x] to not be in violation of the constitution"? Then anyone in the executive branch has to behave as though that action were constitutional, no matter what it is, don't they?
[deleted]
> But it's not madness based on the intended structure of government? The EO isn't saying "ignore Constitutional violations". It wouldn't be valid if it did.
If all executive actors must bend for the president’s orders, regardless of previous orders, laws and precedent, then nobody’s views in the executive branch matter, any time the President chooses.
They are now effectively sworn to a particular human, not the Constitution.
The President is now the “Constitution” for the executive branch.
(You might counter with the argument that they are sworn to the President’s Office first, but who actually gets to decide what that means? The human in that role.)
It is madness because a president whose will is unassailable within their own branch is also unassailable across all three branches.
The President has all the levers of practical coercive power.
Neither Congress can put any law into effect, or the Judiciary put any ruling into effect, without the cooperation of the executive branch. Without that, their existence is decorative.
If all executive actors must bend for the president’s orders, regardless of previous orders, laws and precedent, then nobody’s views in the executive branch matter, any time the President chooses.
They are now effectively sworn to a particular human, not the Constitution.
The President is now the “Constitution” for the executive branch.
(You might counter with the argument that they are sworn to the President’s Office first, but who actually gets to decide what that means? The human in that role.)
It is madness because a president whose will is unassailable within their own branch is also unassailable across all three branches.
The President has all the levers of practical coercive power.
Neither Congress can put any law into effect, or the Judiciary put any ruling into effect, without the cooperation of the executive branch. Without that, their existence is decorative.
> The executive branch of government is more accurately viewed as a monolithic organization which derives 100% of it's authority by delegation from the US President
That is inaccurate. Almost all federal departments and agencies derive their authority from acts of Congress. The President has very limited authority to create and empower agencies.
The strongest argument against the CFPB is that is was not created by an act of Congress. Trump could not create a DOGE so he renamed the USDS. He cannot shut down USAID, but he can mismanage it.
The president is required by law to execute the laws passed by Congress even if he strongly disagrees. The mass firings and funding holds have the legal fig leaf that he is managing them to the best of his ability.
That is inaccurate. Almost all federal departments and agencies derive their authority from acts of Congress. The President has very limited authority to create and empower agencies.
The strongest argument against the CFPB is that is was not created by an act of Congress. Trump could not create a DOGE so he renamed the USDS. He cannot shut down USAID, but he can mismanage it.
The president is required by law to execute the laws passed by Congress even if he strongly disagrees. The mass firings and funding holds have the legal fig leaf that he is managing them to the best of his ability.
> Almost all federal departments and agencies derive their authority from acts of Congress.
Partially, as we need to be precise in our language.
Congress can design an agency, determine what powers it has, determine agency procedures and fund agencies.
It's up to the President to execute the law within those boundaries, including selecting the head of that agency (with Senate approval), and determining how the agency executes the law which can be incredibly broad if Congress wasn't proscriptive.
Thus the authority to execute the laws is delegated to the President by the Constitution who then delegates that power to the head of the agency which acts on the Presidents behalf.
More broadly, the Supreme Court has made clear that the Constitution imposes important limits on Congress’s ability to influence or control the actions of officers once they are appointed. Likewise, it is widely believed that the President must retain a certain amount of independent discretion in selecting officers that Congress may not impede. These principles ensure that the President may fulfill his constitutional duty under Article II to take [c]are that the laws are faithfully executed.9
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3...
Partially, as we need to be precise in our language.
Congress can design an agency, determine what powers it has, determine agency procedures and fund agencies.
It's up to the President to execute the law within those boundaries, including selecting the head of that agency (with Senate approval), and determining how the agency executes the law which can be incredibly broad if Congress wasn't proscriptive.
Thus the authority to execute the laws is delegated to the President by the Constitution who then delegates that power to the head of the agency which acts on the Presidents behalf.
More broadly, the Supreme Court has made clear that the Constitution imposes important limits on Congress’s ability to influence or control the actions of officers once they are appointed. Likewise, it is widely believed that the President must retain a certain amount of independent discretion in selecting officers that Congress may not impede. These principles ensure that the President may fulfill his constitutional duty under Article II to take [c]are that the laws are faithfully executed.9
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3...
> More broadly, the Supreme Court has made clear that the Constitution imposes important limits on Congress’s [and the President’s] ability to influence or control the actions of officers once they are appointed.
Improved on that, just a tad, for this discussions context. Not disagreeing.
Without that balance Congress couldn’t delegate anything with any expectation of its will being carried out.
And the President couldn’t ensure the agency acted competently and with respect to the President’s good faith understanding of the agency’s guiding laws.
With the courts ready to step in to settle any differences.
Agencies can only work reliably with the differing participations and limitations of all three roles.
As with all expressions of law.
Improved on that, just a tad, for this discussions context. Not disagreeing.
Without that balance Congress couldn’t delegate anything with any expectation of its will being carried out.
And the President couldn’t ensure the agency acted competently and with respect to the President’s good faith understanding of the agency’s guiding laws.
With the courts ready to step in to settle any differences.
Agencies can only work reliably with the differing participations and limitations of all three roles.
As with all expressions of law.
> More broadly, the Supreme Court has made clear that the Constitution imposes important limits on Congress’s ability to influence or control the actions of officers once they are appointed.
No they did the opposite when they overruled Chevron. They said Congress cannot delegate that amount of its plenary power to the executive.
This of course lays the whole thing bare. When it comes to regulating markets or companies, or minority rights, conservatives think the president has no power. But when it comes to immigration or Christian social issues, the president is all powerful. This translates into laughable double standards like "the Biden admin even sending a single email to Twitter is pressure and censorship, but Trump suing media organization after media organization for defamation to the tune of billions of dollars is not pressure and not censorship". None of this is principled; it's entirely us vs them.
No they did the opposite when they overruled Chevron. They said Congress cannot delegate that amount of its plenary power to the executive.
This of course lays the whole thing bare. When it comes to regulating markets or companies, or minority rights, conservatives think the president has no power. But when it comes to immigration or Christian social issues, the president is all powerful. This translates into laughable double standards like "the Biden admin even sending a single email to Twitter is pressure and censorship, but Trump suing media organization after media organization for defamation to the tune of billions of dollars is not pressure and not censorship". None of this is principled; it's entirely us vs them.
> They said Congress cannot delegate that amount of its plenary power to the executive.
That wasn't the conclusion of the decision that overturned Chevron. You can read the decision here.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
Overturning Chevron only impacted the purview of the courts. It changed nothing with regards to Congress delegating power to the executive - Congress can continue to do so.
All it does is make ambiguity in the law the responsibility of the courts to decide, not the executive.
But Congress can still pass a vague law that says "a new agency X will regulate this product in order to protect public safety". The executive can then interpret what "protect public safety" means, but if challenges, the courts won't defer to the agency for the interpretation any more.
That wasn't the conclusion of the decision that overturned Chevron. You can read the decision here.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
Overturning Chevron only impacted the purview of the courts. It changed nothing with regards to Congress delegating power to the executive - Congress can continue to do so.
All it does is make ambiguity in the law the responsibility of the courts to decide, not the executive.
But Congress can still pass a vague law that says "a new agency X will regulate this product in order to protect public safety". The executive can then interpret what "protect public safety" means, but if challenges, the courts won't defer to the agency for the interpretation any more.
Well, maybe more embarrassingly I read your post backwards. But Thomas' concurrence is basically "only Congress can legislate".
I will say it's super unclear how our government works now. SCOTUS is like "sure, go ahead and delegate" but what they mean is "only as much as we let you... looking at you Democratic administrations". MAGA has--through half statements and gaslighting, made it clear that the only principle is that they have power and their opposition doesn't. If that means the Executive is powerful when it's Republican and weak when it's Democratic, well he who saves his country breaks no law.
I will say it's super unclear how our government works now. SCOTUS is like "sure, go ahead and delegate" but what they mean is "only as much as we let you... looking at you Democratic administrations". MAGA has--through half statements and gaslighting, made it clear that the only principle is that they have power and their opposition doesn't. If that means the Executive is powerful when it's Republican and weak when it's Democratic, well he who saves his country breaks no law.
> The executive branch of government is more accurately viewed as a monolithic organization which derives 100% of it's authority by delegation from the US President.
This is a very extreme version of unitary executive theory, which is highly controversial even in its weaker forms.
This is a very extreme version of unitary executive theory, which is highly controversial even in its weaker forms.
Moreover, even were one to accept that extreme version of unitary executive theory, it would be odd to also assume an act of Congress purporting to create an subordinate executive officer who was appointed by the President but removable for only specified cause and granting authority specifically to that officer was then valid but had the effect of actually granting the specified authority directly to the President; a more natural conclusion would be that, as the express intent of such a law was unconstitutional, it was void and had no effect.
Say something like "hey, no, that law is unconstititional!".
What is the purpose of having cabinet secretaries swear an oath to defend the Constitution if the President has the sole authority to decide what this means?
Why do you support Trump being an autocrat?
What is the purpose of having cabinet secretaries swear an oath to defend the Constitution if the President has the sole authority to decide what this means?
Why do you support Trump being an autocrat?
[deleted]
When Congress passes a law saying, "create an agency that sets rules about air pollution, whose director is appointed by the president", the constitution demands that the executive branch do exactly that. Interpreting that to mean "The president personally sets rules about air pollution, using an agency if he likes" is unconstitutional and I think the vast majority of both parties agreed on this for most of the last hundred years.
If Congress disagrees they have ways to override the president. They can pass new laws or even impeach him.
But unless the dems get 2/3 the senate that will never happen.
But unless the dems get 2/3 the senate that will never happen.
They can pass new laws which the current president has stated he will interpret according to his desires, sure.
> unless the dems get 2/3 the senate that will never happen.
If the Dems ever got more than 2/3 of the Senate, then precisely the number of Dems necessary to vote against their party would do so. The party would loudly bemoan the result, and then point out that the defectors had to be DINOs so that they could win their district.
In other words, that will never happen, and was never gonna happen; even if Dems could win a 70% majority without war breaking out over perceived election theft.
Personally, I can't have any faith in a party which armed and supported genocide to defend either democracy or checks and balances. They 'accidentally' dropped the ball many times on this exact issue [0] over the last four years, when heading all this off at the pass would have been far simpler.
0 - https://sarahkendzior.substack.com/p/servants-of-the-mafia-s...
If the Dems ever got more than 2/3 of the Senate, then precisely the number of Dems necessary to vote against their party would do so. The party would loudly bemoan the result, and then point out that the defectors had to be DINOs so that they could win their district.
In other words, that will never happen, and was never gonna happen; even if Dems could win a 70% majority without war breaking out over perceived election theft.
Personally, I can't have any faith in a party which armed and supported genocide to defend either democracy or checks and balances. They 'accidentally' dropped the ball many times on this exact issue [0] over the last four years, when heading all this off at the pass would have been far simpler.
0 - https://sarahkendzior.substack.com/p/servants-of-the-mafia-s...
No, that's not what it says. The part you quoted says that executive power is vested in the president. Legislative and judicial power are vested in other bodies that are not accountable to the president.
The constitution also explicitly sets up formal departments with specific purviews, with heads that need to be approved by congress. It also outlines that the president has the right to get the opinion of said principal offices about their duties (while seemingly failing to state any right to direct said opinions) This implies that the president’s executive authority over the departments is far from absolute, since if it was, why would you need to explicitly bestow a right to merely seek opinions?
If anything, the constitution implies that department heads SHOULD have independent opinions related to the purview of their departments.
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
If anything, the constitution implies that department heads SHOULD have independent opinions related to the purview of their departments.
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
"The Congress shall have Power ... [long list of various government functions and agencies] ...
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof" - Article 1, §8, United States Constitution.
In practice, government agencies are primarily required to adhere to U.S. Code (list of laws compiled from bills passed in Congress). Then they consider executive orders.
Your mental model of the executive branch is a commonly held one. However, you should adjust your model to incorporate this information which may have been omitted from your initial training data set.
In practice, government agencies are primarily required to adhere to U.S. Code (list of laws compiled from bills passed in Congress). Then they consider executive orders.
Your mental model of the executive branch is a commonly held one. However, you should adjust your model to incorporate this information which may have been omitted from your initial training data set.
refurb(3)
> setting up the president as the sole power center is an inherently unstable system.
Autocracies can be very stable... for a while depending on how much people are able to protest (or not). You could argue that N Korea has been "stable" (from the standpoint of the ruling family) for over 60 years.
> There is a very good reason why the founding fathers built in an elaborate system of checks and balances.
Sure that's what we were all taught in school. But it turns out that the whole system is heavily dependent on the executive branch "doing the right thing". But what good is it for the Judicial or Legislative branches to rule against the executive when the executive is in charge of enforcement? Even Nixon was eventually able to be shamed into doing the right thing, but if we have a president who can't be shamed into doing the right thing... well, I suspect we're about to find out, but my guess is that the checks and balances aren't going to be effective.
Autocracies can be very stable... for a while depending on how much people are able to protest (or not). You could argue that N Korea has been "stable" (from the standpoint of the ruling family) for over 60 years.
> There is a very good reason why the founding fathers built in an elaborate system of checks and balances.
Sure that's what we were all taught in school. But it turns out that the whole system is heavily dependent on the executive branch "doing the right thing". But what good is it for the Judicial or Legislative branches to rule against the executive when the executive is in charge of enforcement? Even Nixon was eventually able to be shamed into doing the right thing, but if we have a president who can't be shamed into doing the right thing... well, I suspect we're about to find out, but my guess is that the checks and balances aren't going to be effective.
All of the checks and balances are kind of predicated on the idea that each arm of government who actually bother to protect their own powers, and use those powers to rein in misbehaviour of the other branches.
But both congress and the supreme courts seem to have decided that personal ideological principles are more important than the maintenance of the U.S. democratic foundations. The Supreme Court has basically ruled that the president is above the law, and congress has refused to use its powers of impeachment to prevent the president from running roughshod over congresses laws.
Nixon wasn’t shamed into doing anything, he was threatened with very credible impeachment, and decided that getting out fast on his own two feet, was better than being taken out slow by the ankles via impeachment. But the modern Republicans have demonstrated time and time again, that as long as they’re “winning”, they don’t give two hoots how much damage they do to US democracy.
But both congress and the supreme courts seem to have decided that personal ideological principles are more important than the maintenance of the U.S. democratic foundations. The Supreme Court has basically ruled that the president is above the law, and congress has refused to use its powers of impeachment to prevent the president from running roughshod over congresses laws.
Nixon wasn’t shamed into doing anything, he was threatened with very credible impeachment, and decided that getting out fast on his own two feet, was better than being taken out slow by the ankles via impeachment. But the modern Republicans have demonstrated time and time again, that as long as they’re “winning”, they don’t give two hoots how much damage they do to US democracy.
> All of the checks and balances are kind of predicated on the idea that each arm of government who actually bother to protect their own powers, and use those powers to rein in misbehaviour of the other branches.
I mean, sure, that's the Schoolhouse Rock version. But I'm talking about something else: The executive branch is the branch that controls military, FBI, CIA, BATF, US Marshals - the law enforcement agencies with guns, tanks and planes. Congress and the Courts don't have any similar enforcers. In a showdown where the courts order the executive branch to do something the executive branch can just ignore the order and continue doing what they want. The fact that this hasn't generally happened much in our history is because the executive generally had some kind of respect for the constitution and the institutions that it instantiates. If you get an executive who doesn't give a damn about anything other than maintaining their own power there's really no way to get him/her to comply.
> Nixon wasn’t shamed into doing anything, he was threatened with very credible impeachment, and decided that getting out fast on his own two feet, was better than being taken out slow by the ankles via impeachment.
Ok, but wasn't that at least partly due to the shame that he would incur if he had been impeached? He was afraid of history's judgement - though it was a bit too late for that. In other words, on some level he didn't want the impeachment stain - at a certain level he cared (again, he should've cared earlier, but he thought he was going to get away with it). Now we have a guy who has been impeached twice and he knows he's got enough toadies in the senate so that he won't ever be convicted. Even if the House goes to the Dems in '28 he's not afraid of the threat of impeachment that would likely entail. Nor does he feel any shame over any potential impeachment.
I mean, sure, that's the Schoolhouse Rock version. But I'm talking about something else: The executive branch is the branch that controls military, FBI, CIA, BATF, US Marshals - the law enforcement agencies with guns, tanks and planes. Congress and the Courts don't have any similar enforcers. In a showdown where the courts order the executive branch to do something the executive branch can just ignore the order and continue doing what they want. The fact that this hasn't generally happened much in our history is because the executive generally had some kind of respect for the constitution and the institutions that it instantiates. If you get an executive who doesn't give a damn about anything other than maintaining their own power there's really no way to get him/her to comply.
> Nixon wasn’t shamed into doing anything, he was threatened with very credible impeachment, and decided that getting out fast on his own two feet, was better than being taken out slow by the ankles via impeachment.
Ok, but wasn't that at least partly due to the shame that he would incur if he had been impeached? He was afraid of history's judgement - though it was a bit too late for that. In other words, on some level he didn't want the impeachment stain - at a certain level he cared (again, he should've cared earlier, but he thought he was going to get away with it). Now we have a guy who has been impeached twice and he knows he's got enough toadies in the senate so that he won't ever be convicted. Even if the House goes to the Dems in '28 he's not afraid of the threat of impeachment that would likely entail. Nor does he feel any shame over any potential impeachment.
> The executive branch is the branch that controls military, FBI, CIA, BATF, US Marshals - the law enforcement agencies with guns, tanks and planes. Congress and the Courts don't have any similar enforcers.
military and law enforcement also swear an oath to uphold the constitution of the united states and to defend the nation against threats, including domestic ones. I think it's reasonable that they would defy a president who went totally off the rails to the point where he became a threat and violated the constitution.
military and law enforcement also swear an oath to uphold the constitution of the united states and to defend the nation against threats, including domestic ones. I think it's reasonable that they would defy a president who went totally off the rails to the point where he became a threat and violated the constitution.
> Autocracies can be very stable...
Sure, if you kill all dissenters , keep population terrified and into the dark, remove all sources of information with propaganda then things could stay like that for a while.
Sure, if you kill all dissenters , keep population terrified and into the dark, remove all sources of information with propaganda then things could stay like that for a while.
I come from autocracy and it's way more similar to the US than one might think.
It all starts with distrust of institutions, (silent) support of majority and power consolidation under executive branch. It's very hard to get out of it, and propaganda and terror just one part of it, and I'm not even sure the first.
Just to be clear I lived in Russia.
It all starts with distrust of institutions, (silent) support of majority and power consolidation under executive branch. It's very hard to get out of it, and propaganda and terror just one part of it, and I'm not even sure the first.
Just to be clear I lived in Russia.
Or if you manage to get most people to not care. There can still be dissent, but it would be too limited to have an effect.
I took it to mean that agencies no longer have the final say in interpretations of law when it comes to exercising executive power. So for instance if ATF says a banana is a machine gun and the president says "yes", then barring an act of Congress clarifying, it is. I don't see how you go from there to the end of judicial review?
Naive interpretations like this one, of bad faith actions is how we get there.
This same assumption of good faith was wholly present in peoples' responses to project 2025 prior to the election.
They are not acting in good faith.
Try restating the problem: Why is this EO being issued? What problem, other than judicial review, does it solve for the executive branch?
EDIT: For those who do not think this contributes anything: can you answer the question?
This same assumption of good faith was wholly present in peoples' responses to project 2025 prior to the election.
They are not acting in good faith.
Try restating the problem: Why is this EO being issued? What problem, other than judicial review, does it solve for the executive branch?
EDIT: For those who do not think this contributes anything: can you answer the question?
> What problem, other than judicial review, does it solve for the executive branch?
It’s fairly obvious on its face the concern of the EO is not judicial review but about agencies that nominally are past of the branch the President heads determining interpretations of law contrary to what the head of the executive desires.
And, it does genuinely seem weird to have an executive branch where the head of that branch doesn’t actually control things.
The negative reaction is entirely because of the current executive head, but no one would bat an eye if this were Barack Obama reigning in some executive agency interpreting, say, immigration law in opposition to DACA.
It’s fairly obvious on its face the concern of the EO is not judicial review but about agencies that nominally are past of the branch the President heads determining interpretations of law contrary to what the head of the executive desires.
And, it does genuinely seem weird to have an executive branch where the head of that branch doesn’t actually control things.
The negative reaction is entirely because of the current executive head, but no one would bat an eye if this were Barack Obama reigning in some executive agency interpreting, say, immigration law in opposition to DACA.
> ...heads determining interpretations of law contrary to what the head of the executive desires.
Is the head of the executive an expert in all things? And capable of communicating those expert desires with perfect clarity?
Why have courts if the executive head can sort out all legal nuance themselves?
Is the head of the executive an expert in all things? And capable of communicating those expert desires with perfect clarity?
Why have courts if the executive head can sort out all legal nuance themselves?
> Is the head of the executive an expert in all things? And capable of communicating those expert desires with perfect clarity?
It's not their job to be the expert, it's their job to be the decisionmaker. That's why you have a head. If two federal agencies want to interpret the law differently, it's more important to pick one interpretation and apply it consistently than to get it perfectly right.
> Why have courts if the executive head can sort out all legal nuance themselves?
Checks and balances are important but so is the ability to actually do things occasionally. Independence for the court system is good. Independence for every individual federal agency isn't.
It's not their job to be the expert, it's their job to be the decisionmaker. That's why you have a head. If two federal agencies want to interpret the law differently, it's more important to pick one interpretation and apply it consistently than to get it perfectly right.
> Why have courts if the executive head can sort out all legal nuance themselves?
Checks and balances are important but so is the ability to actually do things occasionally. Independence for the court system is good. Independence for every individual federal agency isn't.
The Constitution is explicit that all executive power is vested in the president.
Article III courts can “sort out all legal nuance”, but the power remains with the president.
Article III courts can “sort out all legal nuance”, but the power remains with the president.
Sure, but an executive basically just implements the laws, not decide what they are. Given the US system this is important, as it's quite possible for the President not to have a majority in the legislature.
So you are saying that we are meant to believe the problem is that people (who exactly?) were formulating and acting on their own interpretations of the law, independent of either the executive or judiciary branches of government? Hmm. If the problem is so immediate it requires an EO, there must be some salient examples you can point me to.
I would react the same way to anyone who had announced we would never need to vote again, who had previously pardoned felons convicted in an attempted coup, and who was now centralizing governmental oversight and power. There is no comparison to another president in the last 150 years or more.
I would react the same way to anyone who had announced we would never need to vote again, who had previously pardoned felons convicted in an attempted coup, and who was now centralizing governmental oversight and power. There is no comparison to another president in the last 150 years or more.
> And, it does genuinely seem weird to have an executive branch where the head of that branch doesn’t actually control things.
It's not weird at all, and it's not true that the head of the executive doesn't have control over those agencies. The head of the executive names their leadership - that is a huge amount of control. And it is enough control - the government isn't some top-down system serving at the pleasure of the president. It is a system for implementing the rules set out by Congress and the courts (subject to the President's judicial review powers), that the president coordinates.
The very title of "president" was chosen by the founding fathers to evoke the largely bureaucratic role they had in mind. It's not supposed to be a position of prestige or control like a dictator or ruler, it's similar to the role of a committee president: someone who oversees the functioning of the committee, and steer the general agenda, but who doesn't otherwise get to decide for the committee.
It's not weird at all, and it's not true that the head of the executive doesn't have control over those agencies. The head of the executive names their leadership - that is a huge amount of control. And it is enough control - the government isn't some top-down system serving at the pleasure of the president. It is a system for implementing the rules set out by Congress and the courts (subject to the President's judicial review powers), that the president coordinates.
The very title of "president" was chosen by the founding fathers to evoke the largely bureaucratic role they had in mind. It's not supposed to be a position of prestige or control like a dictator or ruler, it's similar to the role of a committee president: someone who oversees the functioning of the committee, and steer the general agenda, but who doesn't otherwise get to decide for the committee.
> no one would bat an eye if this were Barack Obama reigning in some executive agency
Obviously a counterfactual we can never truly know but I'd remind you that the right were offended when Obama wore a tan suit and was using Dijon mustard. I'm pretty sure they'd "bat an eye" if he were attempting even 1% of the shenanigans that Trump is pulling.
Obviously a counterfactual we can never truly know but I'd remind you that the right were offended when Obama wore a tan suit and was using Dijon mustard. I'm pretty sure they'd "bat an eye" if he were attempting even 1% of the shenanigans that Trump is pulling.
> Why is this EO being issued? What problem, other than judicial review, does it solve for the executive branch?
It is saying that for all matters where a law is not explicit and prescriptive, the WH shall provide the interpretation for the agency to follow.
The WH is correct that (aside from judicial review, which is not at issue here) they have final authority over how to implement open-ended laws, and not the agencies that function under the WH.
It is saying that for all matters where a law is not explicit and prescriptive, the WH shall provide the interpretation for the agency to follow.
The WH is correct that (aside from judicial review, which is not at issue here) they have final authority over how to implement open-ended laws, and not the agencies that function under the WH.
What about the constitutional directive that the President shall ensure that the laws are faithfully executed? Congress has prescribed how agencies may issue regulations and interpretations through statutes shouldn’t these statutes control?
Article II Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America
It doesn't say "some of the executive power", nor does Article I mention anything about being able to create new executive powers vested in other entities. So if the president is the only one who has been vested with the executive power, how can a functionary of the executive promulgate a regulation that disagrees with the president? Ultimately the House can impeach and the Senate convict, possibly disqualifying them from federal office.
It doesn't say "some of the executive power", nor does Article I mention anything about being able to create new executive powers vested in other entities. So if the president is the only one who has been vested with the executive power, how can a functionary of the executive promulgate a regulation that disagrees with the president? Ultimately the House can impeach and the Senate convict, possibly disqualifying them from federal office.
Right, but what is “executive power”? It is the power to put laws into effect—to execute them. And Congress writes those laws. Article 2 Section 1 does not confer power beyond what the laws provide.
And “vested” does not mean exclusive. Many U.S. laws grant executive power, including the power to promulgate regulations, to persons in the executive branch other than the president. For example, the Communications Act of 1934 creates the FCC and gives the commission the power to “perform any and all acts, make such rules and regulations, and issue such orders, not inconsistent with this chapter, as may be necessary in the execution of its functions.”[1]
There is no authority in the statute for the President to override these determinations made by the Commission.
[1] 47 U.S.C. 154(i) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/154
And “vested” does not mean exclusive. Many U.S. laws grant executive power, including the power to promulgate regulations, to persons in the executive branch other than the president. For example, the Communications Act of 1934 creates the FCC and gives the commission the power to “perform any and all acts, make such rules and regulations, and issue such orders, not inconsistent with this chapter, as may be necessary in the execution of its functions.”[1]
There is no authority in the statute for the President to override these determinations made by the Commission.
[1] 47 U.S.C. 154(i) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/154
> Right, but what is “executive power”?
The enumerated powers in article 2 along with the implied powers that are necessary to carry out the constitutional responsibilities of the president make up the executive power.
> Article 2 Section 1 does not confer power beyond what the laws provide.
It does not confer power beyond what is enumerated and implied within article 2 which vests those powers into a single president. Laws are subordinate to the constitution and have no way of limiting, modifying, or expanding it unless the amendment process is used.
> And “vested” does not mean exclusive.
Can there be two commander in chiefs?
> Many U.S. laws grant executive power, including the power to promulgate regulations, to persons in the executive branch other than the president.
How are they granting executive power? I see nothing in article 1 to suggest they have such a power. Congress was given explicit powers to create lower courts though, "To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court". It seems odd that the framers would forget to mention that congress can also vest executive power into entities of their own creation.
> There is no authority in the statute for the President to override these determinations made by the Commission.
So according to you argument congress can create an enabling act wherein they vest all executive power into the newly created agency head and require the president to nominate a specific person by a specific date and the president would be obliged to execute that law?
The enumerated powers in article 2 along with the implied powers that are necessary to carry out the constitutional responsibilities of the president make up the executive power.
> Article 2 Section 1 does not confer power beyond what the laws provide.
It does not confer power beyond what is enumerated and implied within article 2 which vests those powers into a single president. Laws are subordinate to the constitution and have no way of limiting, modifying, or expanding it unless the amendment process is used.
> And “vested” does not mean exclusive.
Can there be two commander in chiefs?
> Many U.S. laws grant executive power, including the power to promulgate regulations, to persons in the executive branch other than the president.
How are they granting executive power? I see nothing in article 1 to suggest they have such a power. Congress was given explicit powers to create lower courts though, "To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court". It seems odd that the framers would forget to mention that congress can also vest executive power into entities of their own creation.
> There is no authority in the statute for the President to override these determinations made by the Commission.
So according to you argument congress can create an enabling act wherein they vest all executive power into the newly created agency head and require the president to nominate a specific person by a specific date and the president would be obliged to execute that law?
> Why is this EO being issued?
It explains itself in Section 1; pretty much all the above the fold material is on exactly that topic. Trump & friends are taking the interpretation that the US presidential election is a vote on how the executive government is to be run.
As an extension of that, they're pulling power away from the unelected bureaucracy back towards the office of president - because a vote can't change the direction of the executive if parts of it are on autopilot independently of the president.
> What problem, other than judicial review, does it solve for the executive branch?
It doesn't change anything about judicial review. The thing they're targeting is parts of the executive acting independently of the president; which given the behaviour of the intelligence services is probably targeted at them but might be aimed at any of the bureaucrats.
Whether it is a good idea long term is a complex question though. This looks like an area where the separation of powers gets to murky territory. It is hard to have separation of powers given how much of it has been given to the president over the last century - the small-government strategy was a better approach than what the US has set up here.
It explains itself in Section 1; pretty much all the above the fold material is on exactly that topic. Trump & friends are taking the interpretation that the US presidential election is a vote on how the executive government is to be run.
As an extension of that, they're pulling power away from the unelected bureaucracy back towards the office of president - because a vote can't change the direction of the executive if parts of it are on autopilot independently of the president.
> What problem, other than judicial review, does it solve for the executive branch?
It doesn't change anything about judicial review. The thing they're targeting is parts of the executive acting independently of the president; which given the behaviour of the intelligence services is probably targeted at them but might be aimed at any of the bureaucrats.
Whether it is a good idea long term is a complex question though. This looks like an area where the separation of powers gets to murky territory. It is hard to have separation of powers given how much of it has been given to the president over the last century - the small-government strategy was a better approach than what the US has set up here.
> because a vote can't change the direction of the executive if parts of it are on autopilot independently of the president.
That's only mildly true, and the belief of micromanagers everywhere. Ultimately, you need to set an overall direction and then let people execute within that framework, or you're going to get something that's badly run and slow as molasses.
With a nuanced interpretation, this EO even might make some amount of sense (a bit more overview/stricter guidelines). But wherever you stand politically, you can't accuse the current administration to have a sense of nuance.
And, of course, if you want to assume the worst, it's fair to point out that the EO removes all independence without having to spell out any guidelines, which means a world without guidelines and on-a-whim decisions is well possible. That's not a good thing for a regulatory environment. Or a democracy.
And that's the biggest problem - because even if the current administration has only noble goals (and I really don't want to debate this either way, let's skip that comment stream), this XO is massively ripe for abuse for people with non-noble intentions.
That's only mildly true, and the belief of micromanagers everywhere. Ultimately, you need to set an overall direction and then let people execute within that framework, or you're going to get something that's badly run and slow as molasses.
With a nuanced interpretation, this EO even might make some amount of sense (a bit more overview/stricter guidelines). But wherever you stand politically, you can't accuse the current administration to have a sense of nuance.
And, of course, if you want to assume the worst, it's fair to point out that the EO removes all independence without having to spell out any guidelines, which means a world without guidelines and on-a-whim decisions is well possible. That's not a good thing for a regulatory environment. Or a democracy.
And that's the biggest problem - because even if the current administration has only noble goals (and I really don't want to debate this either way, let's skip that comment stream), this XO is massively ripe for abuse for people with non-noble intentions.
I think this is a really good explanation of the underlying problem.
The example that is top of mind to me, because it hits pretty close to home, is stuff like the Environmental Protection Act or the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The laws direct designated agencies to come up with rules to accomplish whatever the act is meant to do, but it does not get into specifics, because lawmakers rightly recognized that they are neither environmental scientists, nor economists of the industries those acts regulate. So if an administration says "holding hands and singing Kumbaya in the commissary is sufficient to accomplish the goals of our mandating legislation", and neither the legislature nor the courts are unwilling to call the executive on it, that's the ball game.
The example that is top of mind to me, because it hits pretty close to home, is stuff like the Environmental Protection Act or the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The laws direct designated agencies to come up with rules to accomplish whatever the act is meant to do, but it does not get into specifics, because lawmakers rightly recognized that they are neither environmental scientists, nor economists of the industries those acts regulate. So if an administration says "holding hands and singing Kumbaya in the commissary is sufficient to accomplish the goals of our mandating legislation", and neither the legislature nor the courts are unwilling to call the executive on it, that's the ball game.
> lawmakers rightly recognized that they are neither environmental scientists, nor economists of the industries those acts regulate
The problem that this EO may be trying to address is that environmental scientists and economists aren't any more above moral reproach as presidents or legislators. Therefore, the status quo was such that if some unelected career civil servant working at an agency decides to interpret stuff under their expertise in one way or another that may be wrong, there was little possibility of redress on the part of the people.
Vote for a different president? No matter; career civil servants can't be fired because the president isn't king! Vote for a different Congressperson? No matter; they aren't experts so they'll defer to the civil servants! And therein lies the "deep state".
The correct answer, in my opinion, is that lawmakers need to sit down with the domain experts and write specific legislation with that expert input. That way, policy remains accountable to the people, who are the ultimate legitimate source of power.
The problem that this EO may be trying to address is that environmental scientists and economists aren't any more above moral reproach as presidents or legislators. Therefore, the status quo was such that if some unelected career civil servant working at an agency decides to interpret stuff under their expertise in one way or another that may be wrong, there was little possibility of redress on the part of the people.
Vote for a different president? No matter; career civil servants can't be fired because the president isn't king! Vote for a different Congressperson? No matter; they aren't experts so they'll defer to the civil servants! And therein lies the "deep state".
The correct answer, in my opinion, is that lawmakers need to sit down with the domain experts and write specific legislation with that expert input. That way, policy remains accountable to the people, who are the ultimate legitimate source of power.
I disagree categorically with this. Yes, in principle, the court cases would be easier if the law was written with the complete regulations in place to begin with. However, facts on the ground change faster than the legislature is able to move at the best of times.
It has always been the case that you or I could sue to overturn a rule from the EPA or the BATF or the FDA. At which time, you assemble subject matter experts to buttress whatever claim you might have, and the regulatory bodies present their experts and then a judge and jury decides. It’s pretty far from perfect, and it has some of the same flaws as the legislative approach, but the important strength is that national defense spending policy is not held up on where the sustainability of dolphin bycatch for tuna lays: 15 or 16 dolphins killed per 100,000 tons of tuna harvested.
I think the underlying premise to requiring the legislature draft all regulations is “the legislature should not be making rules about things they don’t understand”. But 1) that sure as hell hasn’t slowed them down before, and 2) the fact that e.g. airplanes are very complicated is why we want regulations around their manufacture and operation in the first place. It’s confusing to me that the conclusion folks seem to draw here instead is “it’s too complex for the legislature to engage with in a timely fashion, so I guess we just have to accept all these plane crashes”.
It has always been the case that you or I could sue to overturn a rule from the EPA or the BATF or the FDA. At which time, you assemble subject matter experts to buttress whatever claim you might have, and the regulatory bodies present their experts and then a judge and jury decides. It’s pretty far from perfect, and it has some of the same flaws as the legislative approach, but the important strength is that national defense spending policy is not held up on where the sustainability of dolphin bycatch for tuna lays: 15 or 16 dolphins killed per 100,000 tons of tuna harvested.
I think the underlying premise to requiring the legislature draft all regulations is “the legislature should not be making rules about things they don’t understand”. But 1) that sure as hell hasn’t slowed them down before, and 2) the fact that e.g. airplanes are very complicated is why we want regulations around their manufacture and operation in the first place. It’s confusing to me that the conclusion folks seem to draw here instead is “it’s too complex for the legislature to engage with in a timely fashion, so I guess we just have to accept all these plane crashes”.
Useful redress for a bureaucracy taking lawful actions within the guidelines specified is never "let's fire the civil servant". They're not out to enact their agenda, they're trying their level best to achieve the goals set.
(Same way firing L3s doesn't help with execs setting a bad direction)
If that work is nowhere close to the perceived will of the people (again, please, let's not debate "what's the actual will though"), it's a failure of executive and legislative to create clarity.
You're right, ultimately this is about legislative and/or executive having conversations with experts to set the right goals and guidelines.
But you'll need it to be a conversation, and you need to leave room for independent decisions within a larger framework. The EO does squash all discussion or feedback down to "president's always right, ask the president". This makes redress harder, not easier.
Centralized command and control looks appealing because it simplifies a lot of things, but it breaks down because it assumes a single person has all the answers.
And this particular EO makes it worse, because it also directs agencies to ignore judicial decisions unless the president says so. Maybe. The writing's very unclear: "No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law, including but not limited to the issuance of regulations, guidance, and positions advanced in litigation, unless authorized to do so by the President or in writing by the Attorney General."
What's "positions advanced in litigation"? Does it include injunctions/restraining orders? If it does, there is no judicial redress at all. Which means accountability is reduced, not increased.
I don't disagree with you that there need to be limits to regulatory authority of a bureaucracy. But this EO is very much not it.
(Same way firing L3s doesn't help with execs setting a bad direction)
If that work is nowhere close to the perceived will of the people (again, please, let's not debate "what's the actual will though"), it's a failure of executive and legislative to create clarity.
You're right, ultimately this is about legislative and/or executive having conversations with experts to set the right goals and guidelines.
But you'll need it to be a conversation, and you need to leave room for independent decisions within a larger framework. The EO does squash all discussion or feedback down to "president's always right, ask the president". This makes redress harder, not easier.
Centralized command and control looks appealing because it simplifies a lot of things, but it breaks down because it assumes a single person has all the answers.
And this particular EO makes it worse, because it also directs agencies to ignore judicial decisions unless the president says so. Maybe. The writing's very unclear: "No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law, including but not limited to the issuance of regulations, guidance, and positions advanced in litigation, unless authorized to do so by the President or in writing by the Attorney General."
What's "positions advanced in litigation"? Does it include injunctions/restraining orders? If it does, there is no judicial redress at all. Which means accountability is reduced, not increased.
I don't disagree with you that there need to be limits to regulatory authority of a bureaucracy. But this EO is very much not it.
There was nothing stopping Congress from getting expert input from environmental scientists and economists up front, and then incorporate that input directly into legislation. They didn't have to delegate all of their power to the executive branch.
You're getting downvoted for basically saying 'you know how command economies don't work? That model also doesn't work as a national governmental system' by the people who claim to hate command economies.
>Naive interpretations like this one, of bad faith actions is how we get there.
Instead of just dismissing things out of hand like this, maybe you could provide a "less naive" interpretation? Your statement is not helpful either.
Instead of just dismissing things out of hand like this, maybe you could provide a "less naive" interpretation? Your statement is not helpful either.
Fundamentally, an EO says "we urgently need to course correct and do X", which only makes sense if you agree that X is not already being done.
So this EO is not just declaring "the Executive Branch will obey me", but also saying "the Executive Branch has been so disobedient that I need to take immediate action to quash that"
If you are saying that latter sentence, you should be able to justify it by pointing at the disobedience that caused this issue AND explain why the usual mechanism of "Congress passes a law to address the problem" is insufficient (AND congress is currently aligned with the President politically, so that's a fairly uphill battle to argue)
---
As an example, no one should ever need to write an EO declaring "the sky is blue." If you're familiar with history, you might remember that smog used to turn the sky yellow. If someone wrote such an EO back then, you could reasonably conclude the actual purpose of the EO is to declare "it is now illegal to notice that the smog is so bad that it's changing the color of the sky."
So this EO is not just declaring "the Executive Branch will obey me", but also saying "the Executive Branch has been so disobedient that I need to take immediate action to quash that"
If you are saying that latter sentence, you should be able to justify it by pointing at the disobedience that caused this issue AND explain why the usual mechanism of "Congress passes a law to address the problem" is insufficient (AND congress is currently aligned with the President politically, so that's a fairly uphill battle to argue)
---
As an example, no one should ever need to write an EO declaring "the sky is blue." If you're familiar with history, you might remember that smog used to turn the sky yellow. If someone wrote such an EO back then, you could reasonably conclude the actual purpose of the EO is to declare "it is now illegal to notice that the smog is so bad that it's changing the color of the sky."
>So this EO is not just declaring "the Executive Branch will obey me", but also saying "the Executive Branch has been so disobedient that I need to take immediate action to quash that"
I mean, bureaucrats literally lied to Trump in his first term about troop numbers in Syria so that he wouldn't take action to pull them out (and then bragged about it after Biden got in): https://taskandpurpose.com/news/us-troop-levels-syria-jeffre...
I mean, bureaucrats literally lied to Trump in his first term about troop numbers in Syria so that he wouldn't take action to pull them out (and then bragged about it after Biden got in): https://taskandpurpose.com/news/us-troop-levels-syria-jeffre...
I'm not really clear what that has to do with the IRS, FDA, FAA, etc.? You don't burn down the whole orchard just because there's one bad apple. You certainly don't burn down the neighboring citrus farm.
I'm also not sure why something from 5 years ago is in any way urgent, much less so urgent that he needs to bypass a favorable Congress.
I'm also not sure why something from 5 years ago is in any way urgent, much less so urgent that he needs to bypass a favorable Congress.
That answer can be found in the question they asked. Care to take a crack at it?
“No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law“ would seem to rule out, say, accepting a SCOTUS ruling against the President, should he insist it was wrongly decided.
Does any law or executive order say "unless invalidated by a court"? Isn't that kind of a given?
“John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”
They are openly contesting the authority of the courts in various statements.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gx3j5k63xo.amp
> Vice-President JD Vance has suggested judges do not have authority over the Trump administration's executive power, as the White House responds to a flurry of lawsuits that aim to stall its agenda. "Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power," he wrote on X.
They are openly contesting the authority of the courts in various statements.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gx3j5k63xo.amp
> Vice-President JD Vance has suggested judges do not have authority over the Trump administration's executive power, as the White House responds to a flurry of lawsuits that aim to stall its agenda. "Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power," he wrote on X.
For those unfamiliar -- the quote is from Andrew Jackson, and his stance on the court's invalidation of the US state of Georgia's policies that led to the Trail of Tears.
Not a positive model to emulate.
AFAIK the only other time this has been done was during the US civil war.
Not a positive model to emulate.
AFAIK the only other time this has been done was during the US civil war.
If the court cannot have an opinion more valid than the issuer of the EO, then on what authority can they invalidate it? The issuer can always say: that isn't how the law is meant to be read.
First they marginalize, then they alienate, then they never have to take the extreme action that people like you would recognize as a problem.
First they marginalize, then they alienate, then they never have to take the extreme action that people like you would recognize as a problem.
Doesn't the EO apply specifically to the executive branch? How is this marginalizing the judicial branch?
In the famous Frost/Nixon interviews:
> "Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”
If the President orders the exec branch to ignore the courts on this argument, he hasn’t ordered the judges to do anything, but he is fucking with their power nonetheless.
> "Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”
If the President orders the exec branch to ignore the courts on this argument, he hasn’t ordered the judges to do anything, but he is fucking with their power nonetheless.
Pre-2016, you’d be correct
Today? It’s no longer a given. Trump, Vance, and Musk have all indicated a willingness to ignore court orders. Whether they will go they far is yet to be seen.
Today? It’s no longer a given. Trump, Vance, and Musk have all indicated a willingness to ignore court orders. Whether they will go they far is yet to be seen.
> indicated a willingness
It's not even hypothetical, they've already refused to follow court decisions. For example, when Trump seized funds already allocated by Congress, and ignored a court-order declaring it was unlawful.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/10/us/trump-unfreezing-feder...
It's not even hypothetical, they've already refused to follow court decisions. For example, when Trump seized funds already allocated by Congress, and ignored a court-order declaring it was unlawful.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/10/us/trump-unfreezing-feder...
dclowd9901(1)
They are trying to supercede the oath to the the constitution that people in the executive take, and also to supercede the authority of the other branches.
It's as simple as that.
It's as simple as that.
A court ruling isn't a matter of law - you can say the ruling was issued wrongly, and you may even be right, but you still have to follow it.
If that were the case, then SCOTUS would just invalidate the EO.
SCOTUS can't just "invalidate" an Executive Order like how they can invalidate an unconstitutional law (judicial review). The court system doesn't work like that. No one would have standing to bring such a case, nor does the judicial branch have authority over executive branch internal communications.
What could happen is that a federal agency follows an EO in a manner contrary to law, and that action causes some sort of harm or loss to a person. That injured party could then bring a legal action against the agency and the Court could order the agency to cease that action. But it still wouldn't invalidate the EO.
What could happen is that a federal agency follows an EO in a manner contrary to law, and that action causes some sort of harm or loss to a person. That injured party could then bring a legal action against the agency and the Court could order the agency to cease that action. But it still wouldn't invalidate the EO.
EOs are subject to judicial review. Whether it's a law or an EO someone typically needs standing to challenge it. Although, you can even have Congress create a resolution allowing that. Frankly, there's nothing wrong with the wording of the current EO. What is more likely to be challenged are any rules that come from that EO that run counter to the law.
"But it still wouldn't invalidate the EO." Truman and the steel mills would disgree.
"But it still wouldn't invalidate the EO." Truman and the steel mills would disgree.
And the President’s order compels them to ignore that contradictory opinion.
Where does it say that? What other EOs explicitly say that SCOTUS can override them?
"No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law"
Any employee obeying a SCOTUS ruling is in violation of this EO, unless the President agrees to that ruling.
No EO may say that SCOTUS can override them, but no other EO blocks federal employees from obeying SCOTUS.
Any employee obeying a SCOTUS ruling is in violation of this EO, unless the President agrees to that ruling.
No EO may say that SCOTUS can override them, but no other EO blocks federal employees from obeying SCOTUS.
"Any employee obeying a SCOTUS ruling is in violation of this EO, unless the President agrees to that ruling."
You forget the entire framework for EOs. No EO has "except when a court says otherwise". The EOs are subject to checks and balances, such as judicial review. If the EO exceeds its authority (not based on congressional or constitutional means) then it won't be valid. Meaning you can't grant yourself powers that you don't have the authority to grant under the framework. There's case law you can go look at for a history on it.
You forget the entire framework for EOs. No EO has "except when a court says otherwise". The EOs are subject to checks and balances, such as judicial review. If the EO exceeds its authority (not based on congressional or constitutional means) then it won't be valid. Meaning you can't grant yourself powers that you don't have the authority to grant under the framework. There's case law you can go look at for a history on it.
You forget the VPOTUS is openly doubting the courts’ authority to rule on these things.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gx3j5k63xo.amp
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gx3j5k63xo.amp
A court can't issue an order to an army to surrender. A court can't force the president to nominate someone to be a federal judge.
There are some powers the executive has that can't be overruled by the courts. Now the question is - what?
There are some powers the executive has that can't be overruled by the courts. Now the question is - what?
In the case of OEs, there's a long history that they are subject to judicial powers if they are not based in law or constitutional powers. In the case of this specific EO, it's likely to stand but the rules coming out of it are likely to be challenged if they overstep the authority in law.
The examples in that article are legitimate examples. The more concerning part in that article is the suggestion of not following court rulings such as the myth of Andrew Jackson's SCOTUS quote.
With enough gumption, audacity, charm, ... (or str, dex, int, wis...?)
a USA president, say, could do whatever they wanted, with impunity; we all do whatever we choose, caring to various degrees about the potential consequences.
Anyone can do whatever they want regardless of the rules. However, presidents do not have impunity. Presidents and their EOs can be held accountable by Congress and the courts.
You should still be very alarmed by the President trying to claim that authority.
Sure, EOs have been a scourge for decades, not just this one. They are commonly used to contradict what is written in law or extending their powers, such as choosing not to enforce. This is nothing new.
You keep arguing the same point in this thread. So let’s make it simple.
If Congress or the SCOTUS says do A and the President says do B then the Executive Branch are required to do B.
That’s an unprecedented situation.
If Congress or the SCOTUS says do A and the President says do B then the Executive Branch are required to do B.
That’s an unprecedented situation.
"That’s an unprecedented situation."
It's simply untrue is what it is. EOs are subject to judicial review and are only valid if there's a congressional or constitutional basis. You can't grant yourself extra powers outside of the existing framework, which the EO doesn't even claim to do. Again, other EOs don't have the framework enumerated in them and have been found to be invalid. There's plenty of case law one can look at.
It's simply untrue is what it is. EOs are subject to judicial review and are only valid if there's a congressional or constitutional basis. You can't grant yourself extra powers outside of the existing framework, which the EO doesn't even claim to do. Again, other EOs don't have the framework enumerated in them and have been found to be invalid. There's plenty of case law one can look at.
You seem to be confused about the basics of constitutional law and the separation of powers. EOs are not at all subject to judicial review. Those are simply communications within the executive branch, like a memo. There is literally nothing to review and no case law supports your claim. But the judiciary does have the authority to issue orders regarding actions taken by federal employees and agencies if they do something contrary to federal law — regardless of whether those actions were motivated by an EO or anything else.
"You seem to be confused about the basics of constitutional law and the separation of powers. EOs are not at all subject to judicial review."
Funny, I could say the same about you...
https://www.fjc.gov/history/administration/judicial-review-e...
Funny, I could say the same about you...
https://www.fjc.gov/history/administration/judicial-review-e...
> EOs are subject to judicial review and are only valid if there's a congressional or constitutional basis
This is just nonsense.
Trump, for example, recently signed an EO to end the use of paper straws.
Where is your justification that there is a valid congressional or constitutional basis for this ? Of course there isn’t. Executive Orders allow the President to interpret existing laws as they see fit. Even in ways they were never intended to be interpreted.
This is just nonsense.
Trump, for example, recently signed an EO to end the use of paper straws.
Where is your justification that there is a valid congressional or constitutional basis for this ? Of course there isn’t. Executive Orders allow the President to interpret existing laws as they see fit. Even in ways they were never intended to be interpreted.
Executive Orders were meant to give instructions to the executive branch on how to “faithfully execute the law”. They turned into — through several presidents, a way to bind the executive branch to a particular way of interpreting the law —- or in some cases —- making law out of whole cloth.
Trump is continuing this trend, and while we should all be concerned as to where he takes it, congress and the judiciary share the blame for not reigning in prior presidents.
Trump is continuing this trend, and while we should all be concerned as to where he takes it, congress and the judiciary share the blame for not reigning in prior presidents.
previous presidents didn't have to worry as much about this before 8 months ago when SCOTUS declared presidential immunity. The only ones able to abuse this power was a few months of Biden (who said he wouldn't) and now, trump 47 after a month stretching it to a thin paste.
Please educate yourself.
https://www.fjc.gov/history/administration/judicial-review-e...
https://www.fjc.gov/history/administration/judicial-review-e...
He took it that way because without a charitable interpretation such as yours, the wording leaves power assigned vaguely enough end run judicial review. Given this administration's history with attempts to grab power, I'd say your interpretation is _far_ too charitable.
If the Supreme Court rules against the Executive, they might order an agency to comply with a ruling or - barring that - hold an agency head in contempt. Under this EO, the agency wouldn't comply, since the agency would assume Trump's read of the law is correct - superceding even the Court's. If they tried to enforce a contempt order, the US Marshals would not comply either. Soldiers that swear allegiance to the Constitution would also have to defer to the President, even if the Supreme Court ordered the military not to obey an unconstitutional order.
The problem is the EO commands absolute subservience to the President's view of the Constitution, which makes it impossible for them to comply with Court orders.
The problem is the EO commands absolute subservience to the President's view of the Constitution, which makes it impossible for them to comply with Court orders.
Right, court orders are enforced by the executive branch. Conventionally court interpretations of the law are definitive and the executive branch enforces them.
This order tells executive branch employees, including the police and court officers, that they are required to follow POTUS interpretations over all others. Implicitly that includes over court interpretations.
This order tells executive branch employees, including the police and court officers, that they are required to follow POTUS interpretations over all others. Implicitly that includes over court interpretations.
> Under this EO, the agency wouldn't comply, since the agency would assume Trump's read of the law is correct - superceding even the Court's. If they tried to enforce a contempt order, the US Marshals would not comply either.
Why? The Marshals enforce blatantly wrong court judgements all the time. Court judgements are court judgements, contempt orders are contempt orders, both can say almost anything. There's no interpreting the law part of enforcing a judgement or order - the court judgement is just as valid whether it's legally correct or not.
Why? The Marshals enforce blatantly wrong court judgements all the time. Court judgements are court judgements, contempt orders are contempt orders, both can say almost anything. There's no interpreting the law part of enforcing a judgement or order - the court judgement is just as valid whether it's legally correct or not.
> setting up the president as the sole power center is an inherently unstable system
Only if there is a transition of power. If power stays in the same hands, the system can be very stable - and not in a good way.
Only if there is a transition of power. If power stays in the same hands, the system can be very stable - and not in a good way.
> If power stays in the same hands, the system can be very stable - and not in a good way.
I don't think it actually can be that stable. I think I see what people are getting at when they say this, but it seems to me that authoritarian governments are generally quite unstable, because power never stays in the same hands. Power always changes hands, because we are mortal. Non-authoritarian systems are built to handle this, and ensure that it happens frequently enough that the wheels stay greased. Authoritarian systems are built around ensuring that the concentrated power stays only in the hands of certain people, and this is not possible.
To put it another way, non-authoritarian governments have less variance because they are taking some (very) rough average of all the people. Authoritarian governments are much more subject to the significant variance of individuals.
Of course we don't actually have that much historical data on non-authoritarian governments.
I don't think it actually can be that stable. I think I see what people are getting at when they say this, but it seems to me that authoritarian governments are generally quite unstable, because power never stays in the same hands. Power always changes hands, because we are mortal. Non-authoritarian systems are built to handle this, and ensure that it happens frequently enough that the wheels stay greased. Authoritarian systems are built around ensuring that the concentrated power stays only in the hands of certain people, and this is not possible.
To put it another way, non-authoritarian governments have less variance because they are taking some (very) rough average of all the people. Authoritarian governments are much more subject to the significant variance of individuals.
Of course we don't actually have that much historical data on non-authoritarian governments.
Look at Venezuela.
Chavez was kind of a thug, but he was also immensely popular with the commons. The people supported him, in a lot of his goals, and he was able to have a light touch, on a lot of the authoritarian stuff.
When he stepped aside, and Maduro took over, Chavez had established what was basically a dictatorship, and Maduro took the reins.
However, Maduro does not have the base support that Chavez had, and has had to use the stick a lot more. That sort of sets up a negative feedback loop, where more stick, means unhappier people, pushing back, which needs more stick.
Even if the current GOP really does have the best interests of the people in mind, if they dismantle the checks and balances, it's highly likely that a successor will use the power badly.
Chavez was kind of a thug, but he was also immensely popular with the commons. The people supported him, in a lot of his goals, and he was able to have a light touch, on a lot of the authoritarian stuff.
When he stepped aside, and Maduro took over, Chavez had established what was basically a dictatorship, and Maduro took the reins.
However, Maduro does not have the base support that Chavez had, and has had to use the stick a lot more. That sort of sets up a negative feedback loop, where more stick, means unhappier people, pushing back, which needs more stick.
Even if the current GOP really does have the best interests of the people in mind, if they dismantle the checks and balances, it's highly likely that a successor will use the power badly.
> Even if the current GOP really does have the best interests of the people in mind
Note that the Chavez/Maduro distinction you drew was not about “best interests of the people in mind” but the former being immensely popular and the latter not. The current Administration, whatever intent may exist in their minds, is very much not “immensely popular”.
Note that the Chavez/Maduro distinction you drew was not about “best interests of the people in mind” but the former being immensely popular and the latter not. The current Administration, whatever intent may exist in their minds, is very much not “immensely popular”.
> it's highly likely that a successor will use the power badly.
You will not need to wait long, but you do not really need to wait at all.
You will not need to wait long, but you do not really need to wait at all.
We also don’t have much data on how the calculus changes when AI transcript analysis makes the Stasi’s wet dreams a reality.
> it seems to me that authoritarian governments are generally quite unstable, because power never stays in the same hands.
Well, it depends, the Kims and the Chinese Communist Party have been in power for almost 80 years. We do have a lot of history of pre-democratic regimes tho, and many of those lasted longer than modern the democratic states.
Well, it depends, the Kims and the Chinese Communist Party have been in power for almost 80 years. We do have a lot of history of pre-democratic regimes tho, and many of those lasted longer than modern the democratic states.
Trump is pretty old at this point. Even if he decided to go full dictator, how long does he have? Maybe 5 to 10 years? I don't think it would be quite as "stable" as Putin's Russia.
The things Trump has put in place may long outlive him. Roe v Wade lasted a long time.
No doubt his administration will cast a long shadow. I was only responding to the allusion that he could become a long term dictator.
Most of HN is probably too young to remember him, but Trump seems closer to Putin's predecessor Boris Yeltsin from 30 years ago. They have flamboyant and unpredictable public personas in common. Yeltsin also loved public performances, media attention, and direct engagement with large crowds. He often made chaotic decisions based on gut feeling and instincts rather than any clear strategy. Over time, alcoholism made Yeltsin increasingly dysfunctional. His health deteriorated and he was frequently absent. His inner circle, which included powerful billionaires, selected a reliable young successor to maintain their grip and negotiated Yeltsin's resignation in exchange for legal immunity for himself and his family. That successor was Vladimir Putin, a relatively unknown and bureaucratic head of Russia's version of the CIA/FBI. Once in power, Putin systematically outmaneuvered those billionaires who had expected him to be loyal, and played them against each other to gain absolute personal control over the country.
Trump is a known quantity. His destructiveness is limited by his inability to maintain focus. I'd be much more worried about who follows him. Will they represent a return to decency, or will it be someone just as destructive but far more disciplined - like Putin?
Trump is a known quantity. His destructiveness is limited by his inability to maintain focus. I'd be much more worried about who follows him. Will they represent a return to decency, or will it be someone just as destructive but far more disciplined - like Putin?
TBH, I am one of those people that's a little too young to remember Yeltsin. I know him generally, but wasn't aware of the direct through line to Putin. Overall, that's a pretty sobering analysis.
That sounds pretty obviously unconstitutional. I don't see how a reasonable person could disagree actually. The whole point of the checks and balances is to prevent this.
Ok, so how would those checks and balances work if the president refuses to obey the courts? Who's going to enforce those court orders? I suppose you could say that the congress could impeach - but what if the majority of the House sides with the president? And if the House does manage to pass impeachment, it still takes 2/3 of Senators to convict - as we've seen that's a very high bar and very unlikely to happen. But let's continue the thought experiment and say that the Senate votes to convict - who's going to enforce the conviction and kick the President out of office?
If it comes to it, the military.
Which is why they're hinting that generals are going to be fired next week. Likely so they can replace them with loyalists.
Which? The State national guards? The "well-regulated militia?"
The President is Commander in Chief of the US armed forces.
The President is Commander in Chief of the US armed forces.
Yes, if it keeps escalating. We're going to make bloody monday look like a kid scraped his knee. Depending on the escalation, we may even make the first Civil War look tame in comparison.
That's pretty much the fate of all dictators: a coup.
That's pretty much the fate of all dictators: a coup.
The president can take over command of state national guards from governors, however they are bound to defend the constitution just like the others and ought to obey unconstitutional attempts to give them orders.
> what if the majority of the House sides with the president?
In that case, congress is serving as a check on the court's power.
In that case, congress is serving as a check on the court's power.
it's basically a 51% attack. Only that the job security of the 51% are directly correlated with their participation.
I never said the checks and balances are working well... but the constitutional checks and balances not working well is a lesser problem than the executive branch just deciding that the president is also able to do the judiciary's job
It should be the trigger for country wide protests until the president is overthrown. It won't be of course. But it should.
It should be the trigger for country wide protests until the president is overthrown. It won't be of course. But it should.
Lots of things should have happened long before we got to this point. After Jan 6th he should never have been a contender for the nomination, but then he was and won it. And then the electorate at large should have chosen his opponent, but they didn't. And here we are. I'm not sure what would trigger nation wide protests that are large enough to have an effect - I suspect that in our spread-out country you'd need something like at least 20% of the population which would be about 65 million people. Most people are too apathetic to be bothered and by the time some final straw makes them care it'll likely be too late.
He said he would be a dictator and implied that elections would not be needed going forward. Y'all voted him in on that basis.
It sucks that the constitution died this way. RIP USA.
It sucks that the constitution died this way. RIP USA.
I didn't read too much into it, but apparently 11m people is the critical mass needed for a national protest that can't be ignored. So, it's more around 2-3%. Maybe more is needed, but at that point you will get a network effect of others joining in for the sake of joining in.
We're spread, but IIRC the 10 most populous metro contains half the population. It'd more be a matter in making sure each major hub has around 500k-1m people gathered. As a matter of scale, the Montgomery march was 256k.
>Most people are too apathetic to be bothered and by the time some final straw makes them care it'll likely be too late.
I suppose we'll see soon enough at this current rate.
We're spread, but IIRC the 10 most populous metro contains half the population. It'd more be a matter in making sure each major hub has around 500k-1m people gathered. As a matter of scale, the Montgomery march was 256k.
>Most people are too apathetic to be bothered and by the time some final straw makes them care it'll likely be too late.
I suppose we'll see soon enough at this current rate.
Remember, Trump wants protests. He knows that even in a peaceful protest some fraction of "fuck-shit-up-contingent" will go around attacking people, destroying property, etc. And that gives him a justification to invoke advanced measures (Kelly, his DHS leader, specifically said that Trump had to be told multiple times he couldn't use the military on US citizens while Trump insisted that he did).
I think it's an open question at this point whether the military leadership would deny Trump's request.
I think it's an open question at this point whether the military leadership would deny Trump's request.
Well, this EO just cleared up the confusion. The military will have to obey Trump (because his interpretation of the laws is the only interpretation that matters) and then the military will have to take on US citizens.
I saw somewhere that it often takes "just" 3.5% people taking to the streets to protest to overthrow a government, because for that to happen a much larger number needs to be supportive of the protests.
Even in the worst police state, the dictators power ultimately depends on enough of the people going along with it.
Americans could change this, if enough people cared beyond pressing like on facebook
Even in the worst police state, the dictators power ultimately depends on enough of the people going along with it.
Americans could change this, if enough people cared beyond pressing like on facebook
Have you considered that your model of how things should work is missing something?
The employees of the executive branch are not intended to be a check on the executive branch's powers. They are the agents of the executive.
The legislative and judicial branches are the checks to executive power.
The legislative and judicial branches are the checks to executive power.
> The employees of the executive branch are not intended to be a check on the executive branch's powers.
That's not entirely correct. All civil servants and military swear an oath the Constitution and are required to disobey illegal orders. This EO attempts to largely eliminate the concept of illegal orders.
That's not entirely correct. All civil servants and military swear an oath the Constitution and are required to disobey illegal orders. This EO attempts to largely eliminate the concept of illegal orders.
> Nothing prevents the next president from having a radically different opinion.
Of course, this is only relevant if they are interested in having a 'next' president, something which it seems a segment of society is less than open to.
Of course, this is only relevant if they are interested in having a 'next' president, something which it seems a segment of society is less than open to.
I would like to believe(perhaps naively) that the segment of population which genuinely believes in doing away with democracy is pretty small.
However, in case such an event comes to pass, what is far more important is the segment which actively opposes such a power grab. Authoritarians reply on the passiveness of the majority coupled with a small but very vocal and rabid fan base.
It's quite possible that a slow and gradual slide in that direction is underway, but the minute even a small faction of people actively oppose that, strongmen tend to find the limits of their power pretty quickly and mostly in ways that are pretty detrimental to their health.
The civil rights movement is a pretty good example of the power of a small set of people being enough to have critical mass.
However, in case such an event comes to pass, what is far more important is the segment which actively opposes such a power grab. Authoritarians reply on the passiveness of the majority coupled with a small but very vocal and rabid fan base.
It's quite possible that a slow and gradual slide in that direction is underway, but the minute even a small faction of people actively oppose that, strongmen tend to find the limits of their power pretty quickly and mostly in ways that are pretty detrimental to their health.
The civil rights movement is a pretty good example of the power of a small set of people being enough to have critical mass.
The civil rights movement would not have succeeded without the confluence of growing anti-government sentiment and protests around the Vietnam War, and fears about the spread of communist influence in the US. This forced American leaders to give 15% of their population basic human rights denied to them under Jim Crow laws.
It's about 70 million as of the last count in November.
There are some odd patterns in the voting data. I'm not saying this is proof, but it's definitely weird.
https://electiontruthalliance.org/clark-county%2C-nv
https://www.thenumbersarewrong2024.com/across-the-us/swing-s...
Then combine that with all the election interference we know Elon was doing, and previous years of being concerned about the security of voting machines.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crlnjzzk919o
https://apnews.com/article/election-security-voting-machines...
There are reasons to think the votes may have been tampered with.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42994293
This was previously discussed on HN before getting flagged like most political topics.
https://electiontruthalliance.org/clark-county%2C-nv
https://www.thenumbersarewrong2024.com/across-the-us/swing-s...
Then combine that with all the election interference we know Elon was doing, and previous years of being concerned about the security of voting machines.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crlnjzzk919o
https://apnews.com/article/election-security-voting-machines...
There are reasons to think the votes may have been tampered with.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42994293
This was previously discussed on HN before getting flagged like most political topics.
Proving it will be hard now - I'm certain if there was election interference, that evidence is all gone now. For my money though, I find it hard to imagine that something this widespread across so many states was executed without any whistleblowers.
The list of equipment is long:
https://verifiedvoting.org/equipmentdb/
I guess if someone comes up and shows these same discrepancies everywhere where a particular manufacturer had a footprint, I'd probably be more on board with screaming election interference.
The list of equipment is long:
https://verifiedvoting.org/equipmentdb/
I guess if someone comes up and shows these same discrepancies everywhere where a particular manufacturer had a footprint, I'd probably be more on board with screaming election interference.
> I guess if someone comes up and shows these same discrepancies everywhere where a particular manufacturer had a footprint, I'd probably be more on board with screaming election interference.
The fact this anomaly only happens in swing states under commonly identified conditions for foreign elections with widely accepted interference isn't suspicious enough? You can recreate the Russian tail yourself with the available data. A commenter in the HN thread I linked even posts the code to do so.
I feel like suspicious voting patterns should be investigated, not that I have any belief that will happen. We already have proof of a consistent statistical anomaly.
The fact this anomaly only happens in swing states under commonly identified conditions for foreign elections with widely accepted interference isn't suspicious enough? You can recreate the Russian tail yourself with the available data. A commenter in the HN thread I linked even posts the code to do so.
I feel like suspicious voting patterns should be investigated, not that I have any belief that will happen. We already have proof of a consistent statistical anomaly.
We definitely should investigate. No argument there. It just won't make a difference. At this point, they have gotten away with it, and the opposition did not put up a fight. They are not all of a sudden going to start putting up a fight, when there's no way they win that fight. (But realistically: they are bad at putting up fights over things in the first place, which is how we ended up here - the party with no moral qualms about much of anything ran roughshod over them)
I agree with you it's likely pointless. I'm not arguing that "this information will change the election." That said, I do care about election integrity and the more evidence we have of fraud the more we can (theoretically) correct for it in the future.
I'm very much of the opinion there's going to be a violent civil war before the decade is over.
I'm very much of the opinion there's going to be a violent civil war before the decade is over.
I hate to point this out it wouldn't be a very even fight.
I think it depends entirely on what the military does. People seem to think the military will just fall in line with the president. I think a military coup is far more likely than that.
It may be our only hope but I hear they play a lot of fox news on military bases. Everyone I know who are in the services voted for trump and with loyalists installed in top leadership I don't see who would organize any resistance let alone a coup.
Trump has explicitly said it's the last time people will have to vote. I don't know why people are glossing over this. He intends to take full control and never give it up. The time to act is now, not when he announces some emergency that is a thin excuse to cancel elections.
"He didn't really mean it" isn't really playing out so well.
I'm still betting Trump does not survive his natural term.
(and I'm not even implying anything. He's turning 79 this year and clearly not in top mental nor physical health).
(and I'm not even implying anything. He's turning 79 this year and clearly not in top mental nor physical health).
'The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch'
That's basically what EOs are already.
That's basically what EOs are already.
Yes it is trivial for the scope of presidential interpretation to extend over the executive branch. And this excerpt posits nothing about the oversight authority of other branches.
The more interesting phrase is about the AG. While the AG is already constitutionally understood to serve at the president's pleasure, this EO curtails any informal independence that the AG is afforded from past norms.
So I suppose it's declaring that AGs under a Trump administration shall serve as rubber stamps with no independent authority to interpret the law, granted via his claimed constitutional supremacy over the executive branch.
Perhaps it is a edict to AGs who've resisted orders from the President recently, to notice them that job title is the most supreme form of legal analysis in this executive branch. IANAL
The more interesting phrase is about the AG. While the AG is already constitutionally understood to serve at the president's pleasure, this EO curtails any informal independence that the AG is afforded from past norms.
So I suppose it's declaring that AGs under a Trump administration shall serve as rubber stamps with no independent authority to interpret the law, granted via his claimed constitutional supremacy over the executive branch.
Perhaps it is a edict to AGs who've resisted orders from the President recently, to notice them that job title is the most supreme form of legal analysis in this executive branch. IANAL
No. EOs can be overturned by congress. This EO says that they can't - ie: there's no checks or balances on the President
"This EO says that they can't"
Where does it say that? What existing EOs explicitly say congress needs to overturn it?
Where does it say that? What existing EOs explicitly say congress needs to overturn it?
“authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch”
That means that if Congress passes a law with an implicit/explicit interpretation the Executive Branch can simply ignore that.
And there are no existing EOs that say Congress needs to overturn it. It has been the rule since forever that Congress makes the laws. Executive Branch implements it accordingly.
That means that if Congress passes a law with an implicit/explicit interpretation the Executive Branch can simply ignore that.
And there are no existing EOs that say Congress needs to overturn it. It has been the rule since forever that Congress makes the laws. Executive Branch implements it accordingly.
Implicit Yes, Explicit no.
This is basically a tightening of the "major questions doctrine". The idea is that Congressional law must be explicit or leave it up to the executive.
If law isn't clear, this states the executive decides, and it isn't a matter of supposing what congress intended, or would have wanted but didn't define.
This is basically a tightening of the "major questions doctrine". The idea is that Congressional law must be explicit or leave it up to the executive.
If law isn't clear, this states the executive decides, and it isn't a matter of supposing what congress intended, or would have wanted but didn't define.
But you need to combine it with the fact that a whole bunch of agencies e.g. FCC, SEC are now no longer considered independent from the Executive Branch.
It’s the combination of actions that makes this so concerning.
It’s the combination of actions that makes this so concerning.
One thing I'm interested in that they didn't cover in school, if there's 3 branches of government, then what branch were the independent agencies a part of before being moved into the executive?
Yes, the expanse of power is concerning. Historically, all three branches have substantially expanded their powers since inception. People in power always seem to take more of it.
Yes, the expanse of power is concerning. Historically, all three branches have substantially expanded their powers since inception. People in power always seem to take more of it.
Of course they were and are part of the Executive Branch. But the precedent for many decades was they were independent. Because not everything that happens in this world is governed by an explicit law.
And what is happening is unprecedented and right to be concerned about it.
And what is happening is unprecedented and right to be concerned about it.
However, we are several years into a trend of courts curtailing the ability of agencies to write laws themselves without explicit and detailed direction.
West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency is a good example of this. Congress didn't vote on the EPA regulating CO2.
West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency is a good example of this. Congress didn't vote on the EPA regulating CO2.
...plus journalism, the fourth branch.
Before this EO, what happened if a lower level official in the executive branch had an interpretation of the law that was different from the President and Attorney General?
Was junior staff attorney in the Tulsa field office previously able to override the President?
Was junior staff attorney in the Tulsa field office previously able to override the President?
They're trying to leverage the immunity the Supreme Court gave him to extend to people following his orders.
> In general, people are going to interpret this EO with their own lens.
IMO if you could look at this executive order in a blind test somehow not knowing who signed it and can ask yourself "would this be incredibly concerning even if it were passed by the political side I agree with?" and the answer is no then you're not looking through a lens, you are drinking kool-aid.
IMO if you could look at this executive order in a blind test somehow not knowing who signed it and can ask yourself "would this be incredibly concerning even if it were passed by the political side I agree with?" and the answer is no then you're not looking through a lens, you are drinking kool-aid.
> Given that the executive branch implements the law, this would imply that the president's interpretation is all that matters. The other two branches have no real role left to play.
What role did the other two branches of government ever have in the executive branch? You're describing the normal state of affairs as if it were a shocking escalation. Actually, it's any deviation from this that is a constitutional problem. The elected president is the head of the executive branch. If he is not the head, then the executive branch has no connection to any democratic process at all. Who is a bureaucrat serving if not the president? An inner sense of fairness or fashion?
What role did the other two branches of government ever have in the executive branch? You're describing the normal state of affairs as if it were a shocking escalation. Actually, it's any deviation from this that is a constitutional problem. The elected president is the head of the executive branch. If he is not the head, then the executive branch has no connection to any democratic process at all. Who is a bureaucrat serving if not the president? An inner sense of fairness or fashion?
My lens is that the military is a federal agency, and our soldiers are federal employees.
This EO combined with the "he who saves his country breaks no law" quote points towards an eventual attempt at a coupe or similar use of force to retain power. Thankfully there are currently no partisan militias in the DOD, but I could see an attempt at a Saddam-style seizing of Congress
This EO combined with the "he who saves his country breaks no law" quote points towards an eventual attempt at a coupe or similar use of force to retain power. Thankfully there are currently no partisan militias in the DOD, but I could see an attempt at a Saddam-style seizing of Congress
In the second quote, the phrases "in their official capacity" and "as the position of the United States" are doing a lot of heavy lifting.
The EO is going out of its way to broadcast that its purpose is to establish a unitary policy position of the executive branch that stems from the President, rather than having "independent" agencies providing contrary position from within "in their official capacity" "as the position of the United States." The logical leap from there to "the President's (unrestricted) opinion is the law (without reference to Congress or the Courts)" is vast.
The EO does not bear on the balance of powers between branches of government, but on the ability for the executive branch to function as a single entity within that balance, rather than a multiplicity of quasi-"independent" agencies.
The disincentives that have always prevented the executive from blatantly violating the law are still in force and unchanged. They have been functional through 250 years of Presidents testing the limits of their authority.
The EO is going out of its way to broadcast that its purpose is to establish a unitary policy position of the executive branch that stems from the President, rather than having "independent" agencies providing contrary position from within "in their official capacity" "as the position of the United States." The logical leap from there to "the President's (unrestricted) opinion is the law (without reference to Congress or the Courts)" is vast.
The EO does not bear on the balance of powers between branches of government, but on the ability for the executive branch to function as a single entity within that balance, rather than a multiplicity of quasi-"independent" agencies.
The disincentives that have always prevented the executive from blatantly violating the law are still in force and unchanged. They have been functional through 250 years of Presidents testing the limits of their authority.
> The disincentives that have always prevented the executive from blatantly violating the law are still in force and unchanged. They have been functional through 250 years of Presidents testing the limits of their authority.
Can you elaborate on what those disincentives are? I am thinking:
- Impeachment
- Charged with a crime, found guilty, sent to jail. It seems like this one is no longer possible due to Trump v. United States
- Killed by opponents
Without the criminal charges being on the table, those disincentives look a lot weaker to me.
Can you elaborate on what those disincentives are? I am thinking:
- Impeachment
- Charged with a crime, found guilty, sent to jail. It seems like this one is no longer possible due to Trump v. United States
- Killed by opponents
Without the criminal charges being on the table, those disincentives look a lot weaker to me.
Similar to Roe v Wade and Chevron, they'd need to overturn Trump v. United States and then charge him with crime (or contempt). So there is a ball in the judicial branch if they get pushed too far. Just extra steps.
The 4th one is us getting a retroactive watergate effect where republicans wake up and approval plummets. There's a non-zero chance Trump steps down if he pisses off everyone.
This only happens with some truly heinous actions that can't be spun. Like, bombing american soil or a ulta-blatant conspiracy with China/Russia. Or you know, him killing Medicare/social security (the most likely actions, given the budget proposal).
The 4th one is us getting a retroactive watergate effect where republicans wake up and approval plummets. There's a non-zero chance Trump steps down if he pisses off everyone.
This only happens with some truly heinous actions that can't be spun. Like, bombing american soil or a ulta-blatant conspiracy with China/Russia. Or you know, him killing Medicare/social security (the most likely actions, given the budget proposal).
>> Similar to Roe v Wade and Chevron, they'd need to overturn Trump v. United States and then charge him with crime (or contempt). So there is a ball in the judicial branch if they get pushed too far. Just extra steps.
_Who_ would charge him with a crime? Prosecution is the responsibility of the Executive branch via the Department of Justice. The only option the court would have is Contempt, and I don't see that being particularly effective.
The only legal avenue this order leaves open is impeachment, and because that requires a 2/3rds majority in the Senate, there's all sorts of ways to prevent it. Even if the republican senators started to oppose him, the DoJ could be used to threaten and investigate senators who step out of line. Or a violent mob could be used to interrupt the impeachment vote.
_Who_ would charge him with a crime? Prosecution is the responsibility of the Executive branch via the Department of Justice. The only option the court would have is Contempt, and I don't see that being particularly effective.
The only legal avenue this order leaves open is impeachment, and because that requires a 2/3rds majority in the Senate, there's all sorts of ways to prevent it. Even if the republican senators started to oppose him, the DoJ could be used to threaten and investigate senators who step out of line. Or a violent mob could be used to interrupt the impeachment vote.
>_Who_ would charge him with a crime? Prosecution is the responsibility of the Executive branch via the Department of Justice.
He only needs to piss off two SCOTUS's to start to have the entire book thrown at him. Unlike Congress, Judges tend to be somewhat resiliant to the political atmosphere. That's a lot more viable than congress. Less people to squabble with and people less concerned about losing their job. I woudn't even count out the entire DoJ on this either.They've been denying some of Trump's craziest EO's.
>Or a violent mob could be used to interrupt the impeachment vote.
Good. I'm tired of being blamed for "rebellion" everytime someone stands in front of a building with a sign. Let Jan 6th repeat while all eyes are on the Capitol looking at Trump.
He only needs to piss off two SCOTUS's to start to have the entire book thrown at him. Unlike Congress, Judges tend to be somewhat resiliant to the political atmosphere. That's a lot more viable than congress. Less people to squabble with and people less concerned about losing their job. I woudn't even count out the entire DoJ on this either.They've been denying some of Trump's craziest EO's.
>Or a violent mob could be used to interrupt the impeachment vote.
Good. I'm tired of being blamed for "rebellion" everytime someone stands in front of a building with a sign. Let Jan 6th repeat while all eyes are on the Capitol looking at Trump.
January sixth was an insurrection, that fact is not changed by trump pardoning the traitors who terrorized Congress that day.
I'm no legal scholar, but sure, I'll elaborate as a layman.
During the Presidency, impeachment and judicial review are the important checks. During the transition of power, state-controlled (as in, not federally controlled) elections and Congressional certification are the important checks.
While many people are disappointed with Congress' hesitation to impeach, impeachment as an institutional protection still works as a protection against blatant disregard of the law. Congress faces the threat of re-election practically constantly, and obvious disregard of the law without impeachment is not in Congress' best interest.
Judicial review is clearly working. I don't need to recap the large number of cases that have be brought against the Trump administration this term. The administration is abiding by stays/injunctions, and the Courts are issuing opinions independently. The Supreme Court, even Trump-appointed Justices, has ruled against Trump before and will likely do it again.
State-level control of Presidential elections and Congressional accountability to the public during certification protect against the spectre of a third Trump term or end of democracy. This scenario is extremely unpopular even among Trump supporters and would be a disaster for those in Congress.
The recent Supreme Court opinion about Presidential immunity in his official capacity explicitly defers and leaves to the lower Courts to determine the precise limits of that official capacity. It is beyond belief that the entire judicial branch would collectively enable dictatorship "bEcAuSe iMmUnItY".
During the Presidency, impeachment and judicial review are the important checks. During the transition of power, state-controlled (as in, not federally controlled) elections and Congressional certification are the important checks.
While many people are disappointed with Congress' hesitation to impeach, impeachment as an institutional protection still works as a protection against blatant disregard of the law. Congress faces the threat of re-election practically constantly, and obvious disregard of the law without impeachment is not in Congress' best interest.
Judicial review is clearly working. I don't need to recap the large number of cases that have be brought against the Trump administration this term. The administration is abiding by stays/injunctions, and the Courts are issuing opinions independently. The Supreme Court, even Trump-appointed Justices, has ruled against Trump before and will likely do it again.
State-level control of Presidential elections and Congressional accountability to the public during certification protect against the spectre of a third Trump term or end of democracy. This scenario is extremely unpopular even among Trump supporters and would be a disaster for those in Congress.
The recent Supreme Court opinion about Presidential immunity in his official capacity explicitly defers and leaves to the lower Courts to determine the precise limits of that official capacity. It is beyond belief that the entire judicial branch would collectively enable dictatorship "bEcAuSe iMmUnItY".
> The disincentives that have always prevented the executive from blatantly violating the law are still in force and unchanged.
We’re just gonna pretend Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024) doesn’t exist, are we?
We’re just gonna pretend Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024) doesn’t exist, are we?
That opinion specifically defers to lower courts to define the precise limits of the President's immunity. I refuse to believe that the collective effort of the judicial branch would construct those limits in a manner that enables dictatorship.
The lower courts can be appealed to the higher courts, so the opinion of the supreme court was effectively that the president is immune if they say so, on a case by case basis.
It was a clever but blatant way to give their side immunity without giving it to Biden
It was a clever but blatant way to give their side immunity without giving it to Biden
You're correct that the Supreme Court ultimately has final appellate jurisdiction on matters of immunity, but that's a long way from enabling dictatorship.
To get there, we would need to assume that the Supreme Court, including only 3 Trump-appointed Justices, is both unwaveringly partisan and unwaveringly supportive of dictatorship.
To get there, we would need to assume that the Supreme Court, including only 3 Trump-appointed Justices, is both unwaveringly partisan and unwaveringly supportive of dictatorship.
So far, they generally seem to be
The Supreme Court is unwaveringly partisan and corrupt; its members have taken bribes and invented new rights for Trump to keep him out of jail. I wouldn't assume that they'd reject a dictatorship.
If they were able to follow through on this absolute power would California succession be on the cards?
Realistically, not unless the military fractured and there was a coherent alternative government that some of them aligned with.
There is absolutely no standing up to our military if it is actually deployed against you as a regular citizen without equal military backing.
There is absolutely no standing up to our military if it is actually deployed against you as a regular citizen without equal military backing.
> This can potentially enable an end run around congress and the courts in that the President can easily choose to interpret laws in a manner inconsistent with the intent of congress and courts.
How does it potentially enable that? The executive branch has always served under the delegated authority of the president. The executive branch has always been able to operate outside the laws as written and ruled on by the other branches, because they have practically no hard power.
Presumably the citizen militia are supposed to be the check and balance for that. The people have always been the ultimate deciders of the government's power.
How does it potentially enable that? The executive branch has always served under the delegated authority of the president. The executive branch has always been able to operate outside the laws as written and ruled on by the other branches, because they have practically no hard power.
Presumably the citizen militia are supposed to be the check and balance for that. The people have always been the ultimate deciders of the government's power.
>This can potentially enable an end run around congress and the courts in that the President can easily choose to interpret laws in a manner inconsistent with the intent of congress and courts
Good.
I hope they do so. Because if trump and friends do it it'll get struck down and precedent will be established. It will likely be too late to stop them, but it will stop the next guy. And the next guy may very well be some establishment swamp creature that would never have encountered any resistance from the other branches doing the same and worse.
Good.
I hope they do so. Because if trump and friends do it it'll get struck down and precedent will be established. It will likely be too late to stop them, but it will stop the next guy. And the next guy may very well be some establishment swamp creature that would never have encountered any resistance from the other branches doing the same and worse.
Why would the next guy abide if the current guy won’t?
Given that in all cases interpretation is required, are you trying to make the claim that the President (who is elected and can be voted out) should not make the interpretation, and that some employee who is not elected and works for them should?
I still don’t see how this changes anything.
I think trumps legal strategy is basically, putting the quiet part into writing. It’s as you already said, what has been the norm
If trump doesn’t like how the departments are executing his policy he has the power to steer it. It makes sense he is the ultimate authority for the executive branch.
Blame congress for ceding their oversight duties to departments. Which IMO is the root of the issue.
I think trumps legal strategy is basically, putting the quiet part into writing. It’s as you already said, what has been the norm
If trump doesn’t like how the departments are executing his policy he has the power to steer it. It makes sense he is the ultimate authority for the executive branch.
Blame congress for ceding their oversight duties to departments. Which IMO is the root of the issue.
No concept of constitutional supremacy and an end to legal precedent is what you consider to be the norm in USA?
What's your job?
What's your job?
I don't read it like that.
I see it as notice to the members of the executive branch that insubordination will not be tolerated. The Chief Executive and the Attorneys General set the final executive branch decision on all matters, and all other members of the executive branch are expected to toe that line.
I see it as notice to the members of the executive branch that insubordination will not be tolerated. The Chief Executive and the Attorneys General set the final executive branch decision on all matters, and all other members of the executive branch are expected to toe that line.
who could have seen this coming
>However this part of the EO is pretty concerning
>> 'The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch'
and later
>> 'No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law'
In the corporate world, when you’re unsure about something legal, you go to your in-house counsel and ask how to interpret the law, you don’t decide for you or the whole company. Same thing is happening here: if in doubt, speak to the AG.
In the corporate world, when you’re unsure about something legal, you go to your in-house counsel and ask how to interpret the law, you don’t decide for you or the whole company. Same thing is happening here: if in doubt, speak to the AG.
Difficulty:
This isn't the corporate world and the worst-case scenario here isn't being sued or taking a trip to bankruptcy court, it's the potential downfall of a nuclear-armed superpower.
Which is why business leaders, at least ones like Trump, need to be kept far, far away from government. The goal isn't to maximize value, it's to administer a society in a sustainable way.
This isn't the corporate world and the worst-case scenario here isn't being sued or taking a trip to bankruptcy court, it's the potential downfall of a nuclear-armed superpower.
Which is why business leaders, at least ones like Trump, need to be kept far, far away from government. The goal isn't to maximize value, it's to administer a society in a sustainable way.
It doesn’t really matter, unfortunately the whole federal workforce has a single boss: POTUS. And now they have a really moody one.
The US needs to come with some new checks and balances for presidential power. With every new election the president asserts more and more power, and the Congress sits idly by.
The US needs to come with some new checks and balances for presidential power. With every new election the president asserts more and more power, and the Congress sits idly by.
Ultimately, I expect this to be taken to the Supreme Court and reigned in.
Don't be surprised if the administration says something to the effect of "the court has made its ruling; let us see them enforce it."
That, or they're hoping that someone will sue so that SCOTUS makes this sort of EO precedent.
That, or they're hoping that someone will sue so that SCOTUS makes this sort of EO precedent.
The president is the executive branch.
Lawyer here.
So i think this is all insane, and a power grab, to start out. But not because of these parts of this EO
I think people are trying to assume this says "the president gets to ignore the courts and congress", but it, uh, doesn't actually say that anywhere. I would very conservatively guesstimate at least 50% of people assume trump will go that route, and so they assume this is the method by which he will do it. But unless i missed something, he's actually said the opposite consistently - he wants absolute power over the executive agencies, but will follow court orders.
If he was going to start not following court orders, i don't think he would have any trouble saying it. I don't think he would issue an EO, either, since those can be challenged. I think he would just continue to fire anyone who doesn't do what he says, or he otherwise disagrees with, and let each individual decision spawn a new court case, rather than give a really large EO that can be challenged and give him a much broader setback.
As for this order itself, I really hate taking a side I hate here, but there is almost nothing interesting in the parts you quote:
To start - AG opinions (and OLC opinions) were already binding on the executive branch. So they already provided authoritative interpretations of law.
Heck, the entire FBI is guided only by AG opinions and guidelines on how to conduct investigations, and has been since it's creation. There are no separate rules - it's just the AG guidelines and opinions. (There is also a secret set of AG guidelines for classified investigations, and they release a heavily redacted version of it)
I don't point this out to say it's awesome, i point it out to show that this state has existed roughly forever. It's just not commonly known i guess.
The part about the president was also already true in exactly the way it is described here. This is what caused things like the saturday night massacre - in the end, the president does get to say what they want to happen, and what they think is legal and people can either resign, or do it. That was always the choice.
This is all secondary to whether courts can say the president/AG's authoritative interpretation is wrong - they can and do already.
Nothing in this EO says otherwise.
>No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance >an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that >contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law'
This is also well within their power to request and enforce. It was also already true in practice in the vast majority of cases, and most importantly, before the highest courts of the land.
At the highest court level (SCOTUS), the US is represented by the solicitor general's office, which is part of the DOJ and controlled by the AG. They also look at appeals court decisions and get involved where needed to direct positions.
In lower level civil matters, the US is generally represented by the civil division of the DOJ, and therefore controlled by the AG.
The only thing this order theoretically changes is to say that the agency counsel who would represent the US at lower levels for various agencies can't take positions that contravene the AG or president.
That is, the counsel for the EPA can't decide they think the president is an idiot and that they are going to take a position that is the opposite of what the president wants.
There is actually little to nothing controversial about that - they shouldn't be doing so in the first place, regardless of who is president or AG[1]. The president always had the power (though rarely exercised) to tell the EPA in the case above to change their position, and fire every single person who refused. It has even happened that they have forced agencies to change positions at the district court level, fired people who refused to follow their interpretations, etc. All upheld since the days of the founding fathers. There is and never was a 4th branch consisting of independent agencies.
The issuance of regulations and their interpretation to flesh out the law is something congress is delegating to the executive branch when they set up executive agencies. The executive only has the power delegated to it here, and congress isn't even allowed to delegate significant power here.
To see why it's not controversial at all, if they moved all the agency counsel to the DOJ, you would have the same effect as this order. This would not be illegal for most agencies, though some have interesting appropriation and other restrictions that require consulting with congress prior to reorging them and whatever.
Put simply:
Congress has the power to restrict or direct agencies through legislation (and the EO even mentions this), and the Judiciary has the power to say everyone else's legal interpretations are wrong.
In between, the executive has always had the remaining power to direct the agencies and how they operate, and have done so, just not as clearly as you see here.
What this order explicitly forbids actually has also been a practical problem before, and the AG's and solicitors end up having to explain to a judge why they changed their position from the lower level one, and get made to look stupid. Not that i believe they are doing it to fix that, but it has abeen a real problem.
So like I said, while I think there is a huge power grab going on, this part of the EO isn't it.
[1] The office of the inspector general is basically the one agency that exists in part to audit and investigate the other parts of the executive branch, and so would normally take contrary positions. But those positions are not taken in court, they just issue reports and inform congress. The agencydoesn't, and has never had, any rulemaking power (except to the degree necessary to carry out it's own function), any disciplining power, and any authority. That is why it is legal for it to be independent and why it was illegal for the president to fire the head of the agency.
So i think this is all insane, and a power grab, to start out. But not because of these parts of this EO
I think people are trying to assume this says "the president gets to ignore the courts and congress", but it, uh, doesn't actually say that anywhere. I would very conservatively guesstimate at least 50% of people assume trump will go that route, and so they assume this is the method by which he will do it. But unless i missed something, he's actually said the opposite consistently - he wants absolute power over the executive agencies, but will follow court orders.
If he was going to start not following court orders, i don't think he would have any trouble saying it. I don't think he would issue an EO, either, since those can be challenged. I think he would just continue to fire anyone who doesn't do what he says, or he otherwise disagrees with, and let each individual decision spawn a new court case, rather than give a really large EO that can be challenged and give him a much broader setback.
As for this order itself, I really hate taking a side I hate here, but there is almost nothing interesting in the parts you quote:
To start - AG opinions (and OLC opinions) were already binding on the executive branch. So they already provided authoritative interpretations of law.
Heck, the entire FBI is guided only by AG opinions and guidelines on how to conduct investigations, and has been since it's creation. There are no separate rules - it's just the AG guidelines and opinions. (There is also a secret set of AG guidelines for classified investigations, and they release a heavily redacted version of it)
I don't point this out to say it's awesome, i point it out to show that this state has existed roughly forever. It's just not commonly known i guess.
The part about the president was also already true in exactly the way it is described here. This is what caused things like the saturday night massacre - in the end, the president does get to say what they want to happen, and what they think is legal and people can either resign, or do it. That was always the choice.
This is all secondary to whether courts can say the president/AG's authoritative interpretation is wrong - they can and do already.
Nothing in this EO says otherwise.
>No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance >an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that >contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law'
This is also well within their power to request and enforce. It was also already true in practice in the vast majority of cases, and most importantly, before the highest courts of the land.
At the highest court level (SCOTUS), the US is represented by the solicitor general's office, which is part of the DOJ and controlled by the AG. They also look at appeals court decisions and get involved where needed to direct positions.
In lower level civil matters, the US is generally represented by the civil division of the DOJ, and therefore controlled by the AG.
The only thing this order theoretically changes is to say that the agency counsel who would represent the US at lower levels for various agencies can't take positions that contravene the AG or president.
That is, the counsel for the EPA can't decide they think the president is an idiot and that they are going to take a position that is the opposite of what the president wants.
There is actually little to nothing controversial about that - they shouldn't be doing so in the first place, regardless of who is president or AG[1]. The president always had the power (though rarely exercised) to tell the EPA in the case above to change their position, and fire every single person who refused. It has even happened that they have forced agencies to change positions at the district court level, fired people who refused to follow their interpretations, etc. All upheld since the days of the founding fathers. There is and never was a 4th branch consisting of independent agencies.
The issuance of regulations and their interpretation to flesh out the law is something congress is delegating to the executive branch when they set up executive agencies. The executive only has the power delegated to it here, and congress isn't even allowed to delegate significant power here.
To see why it's not controversial at all, if they moved all the agency counsel to the DOJ, you would have the same effect as this order. This would not be illegal for most agencies, though some have interesting appropriation and other restrictions that require consulting with congress prior to reorging them and whatever.
Put simply:
Congress has the power to restrict or direct agencies through legislation (and the EO even mentions this), and the Judiciary has the power to say everyone else's legal interpretations are wrong.
In between, the executive has always had the remaining power to direct the agencies and how they operate, and have done so, just not as clearly as you see here.
What this order explicitly forbids actually has also been a practical problem before, and the AG's and solicitors end up having to explain to a judge why they changed their position from the lower level one, and get made to look stupid. Not that i believe they are doing it to fix that, but it has abeen a real problem.
So like I said, while I think there is a huge power grab going on, this part of the EO isn't it.
[1] The office of the inspector general is basically the one agency that exists in part to audit and investigate the other parts of the executive branch, and so would normally take contrary positions. But those positions are not taken in court, they just issue reports and inform congress. The agencydoesn't, and has never had, any rulemaking power (except to the degree necessary to carry out it's own function), any disciplining power, and any authority. That is why it is legal for it to be independent and why it was illegal for the president to fire the head of the agency.
Did you see Walter Olson's Cato bit? I had the same take you have (I have associates that worked at FTC until recently, were familiar with the process, and pointed out basically the same thing --- that the independent agencies have so many DOJ touchpoints that the administration already has effective control). But Olson says the prospect of all the independent agencies needing to run their rulemaking processes through OIRA would be a big deal.
https://www.cato.org/blog/white-house-independent-agencies-m...
https://www.cato.org/blog/white-house-independent-agencies-m...
I agree that part is the more substantive change, but OTOH it seems reasonable to me: Why would the president have less oversight over the regulatory acts the bodies he nominally (and constitutionally) supervises than he has over the laws passed by congress, by virtue of them passing his desk on the way to becoming law?
It might not be a wise change for him or his party, given that all changes to the practice and structure of government ought to be viewed through the lens of your worst opponent wielding them...
It might not be a wise change for him or his party, given that all changes to the practice and structure of government ought to be viewed through the lens of your worst opponent wielding them...
I also (like nullc ) agree with his take that the OIRA part is more important. But I’m sort of not sure I agree with his argument about their independence. Walter is brilliant so I may just be missing something that is in his brain and left unsaid. ;)
He agrees that most were never really independent but points out some and goes into a chat about the UET. The UET seems mostly irrelevant here. There is no 4th branch. They are either executive agencies or not.
They are further either exercising power delegated from Congress, or exercising power delegated from the executive. If the former, Trump can’t control them, even under most interpretations of UET, but then you have non delegation problems to deal with. This is the OIG case.
If they are exercising power granted to the executive, it’s literally his right to control them.
The constitution doesn’t give a third option where congress can establish agencies that have power from the executive but the executive can’t control them. They can only establish agencies with no real power that the executive can’t control
I can believe after ~250 years we have some weird edge cases, but it seems fine to clean that up
He agrees that most were never really independent but points out some and goes into a chat about the UET. The UET seems mostly irrelevant here. There is no 4th branch. They are either executive agencies or not.
They are further either exercising power delegated from Congress, or exercising power delegated from the executive. If the former, Trump can’t control them, even under most interpretations of UET, but then you have non delegation problems to deal with. This is the OIG case.
If they are exercising power granted to the executive, it’s literally his right to control them.
The constitution doesn’t give a third option where congress can establish agencies that have power from the executive but the executive can’t control them. They can only establish agencies with no real power that the executive can’t control
I can believe after ~250 years we have some weird edge cases, but it seems fine to clean that up
What are the real power grabs/most insane things happening now in your opinion?
It's really sad no one just looks up the legal principles conservatives are pushing forward together with Trump.
Here, it's the unified executive theory, which is based on how the US system had worked for its first century.
Same with the birthright citizenship. The conservative argument is actually to a degree fairly reasonable. If I say this, then the current SC will surely rule in favor.
Just read the Wiki for an intro on the details.
Here, it's the unified executive theory, which is based on how the US system had worked for its first century.
Same with the birthright citizenship. The conservative argument is actually to a degree fairly reasonable. If I say this, then the current SC will surely rule in favor.
Just read the Wiki for an intro on the details.
Ironically, this is reminiscent of Bush-Cheney justifications for a host of programs such as NSA warrantless domestic surveillance, CIA black site rendition flights, Iraqi and Afghan Reconstruction, etc.
Method-wise, GW Bush used signing statements on more than 100 laws in collaboration with his AG to express executive control over interpretation of laws. The language of some of these is interesting, eg Dec 17 2004 on an intelligence reform bill:
> "The executive branch shall construe the Act in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch, which encompass the authority to conduct intelligence operations."
(Which was a long-winded way of saything were doing warrantless surveillance of US citizens, also circumventing the courts)
The other method was Office of Legal Counsel memos, eg Yoo's torture-is-OK letter for the CIA, etc.
Curiously, Cheney, the main advocate of unilateral executive power, was campaigning for Harris - but Trump can now use the Bush era as precedent, which is equally odd as Trump ran directly against some of those Bush-Cheney policies in 2016...
As to why this is a bad idea, look at King Lear and Macbeth, both being examples of unitary executive power gone wrong.
Method-wise, GW Bush used signing statements on more than 100 laws in collaboration with his AG to express executive control over interpretation of laws. The language of some of these is interesting, eg Dec 17 2004 on an intelligence reform bill:
> "The executive branch shall construe the Act in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch, which encompass the authority to conduct intelligence operations."
(Which was a long-winded way of saything were doing warrantless surveillance of US citizens, also circumventing the courts)
The other method was Office of Legal Counsel memos, eg Yoo's torture-is-OK letter for the CIA, etc.
Curiously, Cheney, the main advocate of unilateral executive power, was campaigning for Harris - but Trump can now use the Bush era as precedent, which is equally odd as Trump ran directly against some of those Bush-Cheney policies in 2016...
As to why this is a bad idea, look at King Lear and Macbeth, both being examples of unitary executive power gone wrong.
This new administration lays bare what we've known all along - the legislative gridlock and dysfunction in the house of representatives and senate has made them completely incapable of governing -- the least productive in a generation.
This is opened up an opportunity for a well funded strongman, and the checks and balances that were intended to protect our democracy are now mere suggestions.
This is opened up an opportunity for a well funded strongman, and the checks and balances that were intended to protect our democracy are now mere suggestions.
This is the problem with people being OK with executive overreach when "their team" is in power. Eventually, and in fact about 50% of the time - the OTHER team is in power.. and may just push the overreach further.
We should desire that the legislative side actually legislates and each branch of the government holds the other two in check, regardless of partisan control.
Further having our judicial branch become openly partisan while remaining lifetime appointments despite younger appointees with longer lifetimes, is really the finishing touch on this slow rolling disaster.
We should desire that the legislative side actually legislates and each branch of the government holds the other two in check, regardless of partisan control.
Further having our judicial branch become openly partisan while remaining lifetime appointments despite younger appointees with longer lifetimes, is really the finishing touch on this slow rolling disaster.
You've nailed it. I call this the Galadriel Principle and it can be applied to many things: weapons, executive procedures, etc.:
“And now at last it comes. You will give me the Ring freely! In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair!”
Oppression when Galadriel is on the throne may be better than that for Sauron; it's still oppression.
“And now at last it comes. You will give me the Ring freely! In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair!”
Oppression when Galadriel is on the throne may be better than that for Sauron; it's still oppression.
The Lord of the Rings movie that that scene so much emotional justice. Visually representing the power corrupting even with but a taste.
This is the crux of the issue. Executive power has been gradually expanded since at least the end of WWII, but things have accelerated since the early 00's. Think GWB's "signing statements" or Obama's "phone and pen." Trump I, Biden, and now Trump II have continued to push the limits, in part because of a desire for more power but also because Congress hasn't functioned as an institution in decades. Congress has passed a budget on time only 4 times since 1977, the last time being in 1997.
Presidents are elected based on promises made to various parts of the electorate, and if/when Congress won't act (often even when Congress is controlled by the president's party, nearly always when controlled by the opposition), no one generally makes a fuss if the president pushes through a popular-ish thing by executive authority. Republicans may be happy now but they won't be when a Democratic president ups the ante in a few years, just like Democrats were perfectly happy with Obama and Biden's overreaches but are furious at Trump's.
Presidents are elected based on promises made to various parts of the electorate, and if/when Congress won't act (often even when Congress is controlled by the president's party, nearly always when controlled by the opposition), no one generally makes a fuss if the president pushes through a popular-ish thing by executive authority. Republicans may be happy now but they won't be when a Democratic president ups the ante in a few years, just like Democrats were perfectly happy with Obama and Biden's overreaches but are furious at Trump's.
Congress needs to be expanded to do its job, and drop the filibuster. We need more, proportionally allocated representatives. Representatives that come from more than one of two parties. Representatives that spend more time at home than on the campaign trail or in DC.
I think filibusters just need to go back to how they used to be. If you feel strongly about something you better be prepared to blab for hours on end, on your feet. If you can't physically do that... well, maybe that's a sign in and of itself.
All for reps expansion. Remember that we haven't expanded in nearly 100 years because "we were out of room in the building". Meanwhile we have 435 people representing 330 million people (average of 760k people per rep), when the population representation was roughly 250k/rep the last time it expanded.
We should have at least 1000 reps by these numbers.
All for reps expansion. Remember that we haven't expanded in nearly 100 years because "we were out of room in the building". Meanwhile we have 435 people representing 330 million people (average of 760k people per rep), when the population representation was roughly 250k/rep the last time it expanded.
We should have at least 1000 reps by these numbers.
> If you can't physically [philibister for hours/days] ... well, maybe that's a sign in and of itself.
And reason has prevailed again.
But sarcasm aside, its a difficult question who controls parlaments, when democratic participation is not enough. Maybe oversight or veto rights by randomly picked citizen councils are a better way then blindly trusting anything that happens in-house.
And reason has prevailed again.
But sarcasm aside, its a difficult question who controls parlaments, when democratic participation is not enough. Maybe oversight or veto rights by randomly picked citizen councils are a better way then blindly trusting anything that happens in-house.
Representatives with term limits. It blows my mind that someone can be a career congressperson. It creates precisely the same adverse incentives as being a career president. Your whole focus becomes making sure you stay in power. Which for congresspeople means toeing the party line.
Term limits lead to institutional knowledge and skills being concentrated in unelected staffers and lobbyists. Effective legislating involves building relationships, negotiating skills, and deep subject matter knowledge in at least some areas.
Yes, we have tons of bad legislators: some just not good at their jobs, some actively harmful (leaving that vague on purpose—I think all partisans can agree that they exist, even if we disagree on who they are). In theory, they can be excised via the ballot box. However, we don't want to kick out the good ones just as they're getting to be their most effective—not only do we lose their direct skills, but we lose their ability to mentor the promising up-and-comers.
I place more blame on the way we do primaries and general elections: in most districts, the only thing that matters is the primary, and that produces some truly rotten results.
Yes, we have tons of bad legislators: some just not good at their jobs, some actively harmful (leaving that vague on purpose—I think all partisans can agree that they exist, even if we disagree on who they are). In theory, they can be excised via the ballot box. However, we don't want to kick out the good ones just as they're getting to be their most effective—not only do we lose their direct skills, but we lose their ability to mentor the promising up-and-comers.
I place more blame on the way we do primaries and general elections: in most districts, the only thing that matters is the primary, and that produces some truly rotten results.
I'm not sure I buy that. Sure, if everyone in Congress terms out at the same time, and your next Congress is full of fresh faces, you absolutely run into that problem.
As long as things are staggered, senior legislators will mentor junior legislators, and that institutional knowledge will be passed on.
And I don't think we're talking about limiting representatives and senators in the same way we do for the president. I would say it would be fair to allow them to serve for something on the order of 15-20 years.
But sure, I think there are many other problems that matter more: winner-takes-all elections that essentially require you have only a two-party system, the electoral college, and (as you mention) the primary system.
As long as things are staggered, senior legislators will mentor junior legislators, and that institutional knowledge will be passed on.
And I don't think we're talking about limiting representatives and senators in the same way we do for the president. I would say it would be fair to allow them to serve for something on the order of 15-20 years.
But sure, I think there are many other problems that matter more: winner-takes-all elections that essentially require you have only a two-party system, the electoral college, and (as you mention) the primary system.
I'd be fine with term limits of 15-20 years. Most implementations tend to be much shorter than that.
While we're at it, let's put terms on the Supreme Court, too: rather than for life, make an appointment last 18 years, staggered every two years.
While we're at it, let's put terms on the Supreme Court, too: rather than for life, make an appointment last 18 years, staggered every two years.
> Term limits lead to institutional knowledge and skills being concentrated in unelected staffers and lobbyists.
Who cares? They don't get to cast the votes.
Who cares? They don't get to cast the votes.
They were casting Feinstein’s for years.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/dian...
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/dian...
I'd rather the people casting the votes have (on average) a decent amount of institutional knowledge and skills. Otherwise, they either end up leaning on others to inform their decisions, or (worse) they end up making decisions that aren't informed at all.
> It blows my mind that someone can be a career congressperson.
Related gripe: How both houses of congress prioritize "seniority", so that changing a representative indirectly harms the interests of the people being represented. (Though possibly not as much as keeping the wrong representative in office.)
In other words, State X benefits more when their seats are _not_ competitive and subject to turnover, the quality of candidates being equal.
Related gripe: How both houses of congress prioritize "seniority", so that changing a representative indirectly harms the interests of the people being represented. (Though possibly not as much as keeping the wrong representative in office.)
In other words, State X benefits more when their seats are _not_ competitive and subject to turnover, the quality of candidates being equal.
if the voters can't keep someone they like in office, there must also be strong restrictions on time served as congressional / governmental aides, or else those people will become even more powerful than they already are. far too many elected officials already appear to be nothing more than fronts for their unelected staff.
I was reading a rocking history book (Dark Continent), and it argued that Germany had already lost democracy before Hitler, as basically all rules were done by the executive. Sent a shiver down my spine when I applied it to recent US presidents. (The book was written in 1998 fwiw, so not contaminated by current events).
[deleted]
While I agree with the essential point you're making, it's pretty clear this overreach was always part of this administration's game plan. At least until Pence delayed it through validating the 2020 elections.
If you are going to build a machine that can damage you, build it so that you aren't afraid of it being operated by your worst enemy.
> Eventually, and in fact about 50% of the time - the OTHER team is in power.. and may just push the overreach further.
Are you sure this is going to be a fact, in the future? How likely is it, that the next elections will still be (somewhat) fair?
Are you sure this is going to be a fact, in the future? How likely is it, that the next elections will still be (somewhat) fair?
Very. Election officials, across states and across parties, have been faithfully discharging their duties, often under pressure to not do so. This is a responsibility of the states, and not the federal government. If you're concerned, then work as a poll officer on election day.
In Virginia, I get to participate an incredibly professional and structured process that makes it easy for everyone who can vote to vote and makes sure there are many checks that the process is being followed correctly.
In Virginia, I get to participate an incredibly professional and structured process that makes it easy for everyone who can vote to vote and makes sure there are many checks that the process is being followed correctly.
Meanwhile the SAVE act is working it's way through congress. This bill has language that seems to prevent a lot of people from voting:
Women who changed thier last name to their husband's.
Naturalized citizens who come from places where the language requires non ascii characters.
Anyone without a passport.
Anyone from a place where the courthouse burned down taking thier original birth certificates with it... Copies don't count.
To name tens of millions. Maybe trump will interpret the law in a way that lets people vote, or maybe he'll decide that correct interpretation is to limit voting to people more likely to vote for his third term.
Women who changed thier last name to their husband's.
Naturalized citizens who come from places where the language requires non ascii characters.
Anyone without a passport.
Anyone from a place where the courthouse burned down taking thier original birth certificates with it... Copies don't count.
To name tens of millions. Maybe trump will interpret the law in a way that lets people vote, or maybe he'll decide that correct interpretation is to limit voting to people more likely to vote for his third term.
> Maybe trump will interpret the law in a way that lets people vote, or maybe he'll decide that correct interpretation is to limit voting to people more likely to vote for his third term.
Trump doesn't execute those laws, though. The states do, as they are in charge of running elections. Certainly Trump's DoJ could bring lawsuits against states that don't comply in the way Trump wants them to, but it's far from certain that the courts (even Trump's stacked SCOTUS) will agree with Trump's interpretations.
Trump doesn't execute those laws, though. The states do, as they are in charge of running elections. Certainly Trump's DoJ could bring lawsuits against states that don't comply in the way Trump wants them to, but it's far from certain that the courts (even Trump's stacked SCOTUS) will agree with Trump's interpretations.
Federal laws and guidelines for voting must be followed by the states. I don't see this changing with this act. For example - the voting rights act of 1965 is a federal law that states must comply with for elections. This is what the constitution has to say about it for congress:
> The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators
For president it just says states will send electors chosen by the state legislature. This has been the source of immense fuckery for decades... state legislatures often want to ignore the popular vote and just send their party's electors and it's unclear how the current court would sway if that actually happens (particularly if the state's constitution doesn't bind their legislature to send electors based on the popular vote). Further, federal laws like the voting rights act have often been held to apply to presidential election as well as congress.
> The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators
For president it just says states will send electors chosen by the state legislature. This has been the source of immense fuckery for decades... state legislatures often want to ignore the popular vote and just send their party's electors and it's unclear how the current court would sway if that actually happens (particularly if the state's constitution doesn't bind their legislature to send electors based on the popular vote). Further, federal laws like the voting rights act have often been held to apply to presidential election as well as congress.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. This administration is already much more aggressive and corrupt than the previous go around. Trump has been abundantly clear that he does not like or respect democracy and he might very well have the power to end it now. Congress's authority is already being usurped in blatant ways and they are openly talking about not following court orders. If they completely toss the courts aside and survive the resulting backlash (very likely) our system of government as we know it is over.
The conditions for this are being set as we watch. Dictators always prize loyalty above competence, which is exactly what our current leader is doing.
I don't doubt that nearly everyone involved in managing our recent elections are conscientious and professional, but what are they going to do if a bunch of troops with guns show up to change the results?
The conditions for this are being set as we watch. Dictators always prize loyalty above competence, which is exactly what our current leader is doing.
I don't doubt that nearly everyone involved in managing our recent elections are conscientious and professional, but what are they going to do if a bunch of troops with guns show up to change the results?
On the other hand, the popular power of the GOP is currently concentrated around a single person, someone who is also the oldest person to ever start a presidential term, and who does not lead a particularly healthy lifestyle. There is every chance that "What will Trump do during the 2028 election?" will be a question resolved by time and nature.
There is no one waiting in the wings to take over popularly if this happens. Previous people who have at various times looked like they might, have fallen mightily from grace in the eyes of the party, such as DeSantis.
It all falls apart without Trump. And Trump is an old man, doing a stressful job.
There is no one waiting in the wings to take over popularly if this happens. Previous people who have at various times looked like they might, have fallen mightily from grace in the eyes of the party, such as DeSantis.
It all falls apart without Trump. And Trump is an old man, doing a stressful job.
The confusing thing about this is that Trump himself isn't the problem when it comes to actual policy. The Project 2025 stuff is not from Trump's head. He has nowhere near enough domain knowledge to build a policy document like that.
The current problem is that Trump is happy to implement the policies that all these hard-right lunatics have come up with. It's not like Trump writes those executive orders. He just agrees with them and signs them.
Certainly Trump is a problem. He's the one that has united the party around this horrifying agenda, and who is amenable to letting others like Musk dismantle the federal government. The question, after Trump is gone, is if there is anyone else that can motivate the party to vote for someone who will continue to do things The Trump Way (that is, let other, smarter people do things).
I don't know. Like you say, people like DeSantis seemed to have a shot for a bit, but they've fallen out of favor. But it's unclear if these people need another Trump, or if someone with even half of his weird... charisma... will do.
(All of this is of course the standard hypocrisy: Trump and his cronies run on the whole "drain the swamp", "eliminate the deep state" nonsense. But of course Trump just immediately installs a different unelected deep state to run things.)
The current problem is that Trump is happy to implement the policies that all these hard-right lunatics have come up with. It's not like Trump writes those executive orders. He just agrees with them and signs them.
Certainly Trump is a problem. He's the one that has united the party around this horrifying agenda, and who is amenable to letting others like Musk dismantle the federal government. The question, after Trump is gone, is if there is anyone else that can motivate the party to vote for someone who will continue to do things The Trump Way (that is, let other, smarter people do things).
I don't know. Like you say, people like DeSantis seemed to have a shot for a bit, but they've fallen out of favor. But it's unclear if these people need another Trump, or if someone with even half of his weird... charisma... will do.
(All of this is of course the standard hypocrisy: Trump and his cronies run on the whole "drain the swamp", "eliminate the deep state" nonsense. But of course Trump just immediately installs a different unelected deep state to run things.)
> The question, after Trump is gone, is if there is anyone else that can motivate the party to vote for someone who will continue to do things The Trump Way (that is, let other, smarter people do things).
And I think the answer is no.
You're correct, that none of the policy being pushed through comes from Trump. It comes from various other people who are using Trump as a vehicle for their legislation.
But that doesn't really matter, because Trump didn't run on policy. He ran on force of personality.
I don't think anyone else will be able to strike quite the same balance Trump does, once he's gone. They'll either lean too hard into the policy stuff, which will backfire, or they'll lean too hard into the personality stuff, which leads to broadly unpopular people like Marjorie Taylor Green.
I think the only reason that Trump was/is as successful as he is, is that he has spent literal decades being in the news for something-or-other. By having headlines about him pop up every so often since the 1980s, he managed to engrain himself into the public consciousness in a way that let him then win the 2016 election, and everything since then.
Without that history, the immediate name recognition by everyone, I don't think the 2016 primary would have looked remotely like it did. And I don't think there's anyone else with that institutional name recognition waiting in the wings.
And I think the answer is no.
You're correct, that none of the policy being pushed through comes from Trump. It comes from various other people who are using Trump as a vehicle for their legislation.
But that doesn't really matter, because Trump didn't run on policy. He ran on force of personality.
I don't think anyone else will be able to strike quite the same balance Trump does, once he's gone. They'll either lean too hard into the policy stuff, which will backfire, or they'll lean too hard into the personality stuff, which leads to broadly unpopular people like Marjorie Taylor Green.
I think the only reason that Trump was/is as successful as he is, is that he has spent literal decades being in the news for something-or-other. By having headlines about him pop up every so often since the 1980s, he managed to engrain himself into the public consciousness in a way that let him then win the 2016 election, and everything since then.
Without that history, the immediate name recognition by everyone, I don't think the 2016 primary would have looked remotely like it did. And I don't think there's anyone else with that institutional name recognition waiting in the wings.
Yes, its called "elite rotation"
I would put the odds at 99.9% that the US will hold an election in 2028 and that it will be the international consensus that regardless of the outcome, the election will be decided fairly by the voters and will not be "hacked" or "unfair" as current and past fringe commentators have tried to present.
I mostly agree, but GOP efforts to disenfranchise voters they don't like have only stepped up further in recent years. (In particular, the SAVE Act, if passed, could really mess things up even more.) But I think the left sees the whole frothing-at-the-mouth "stop the steal" stuff as counterproductive and won't go that route, so I'd agree that, for the most part, the 2028 elections will be judged to be fair and free of fraud, regardless of outcome, at least by anyone who is not a Republican.
That's the reaction some extreme Trump supporters I know had after 2020. They claimed there would never be another fair election because of the manipulation of the electronic voting machines
That is a complete false equivalence. What evidence was there of fraud in 2020? We are watching what Trump is doing and saying with our own eyes right now.
There were a bunch of people who are easily tricked who latched onto the election fraud claims by habitual liars. That doesn't make the claims true.
I really don't understand what you are trying to do other than distract.
There were a bunch of people who are easily tricked who latched onto the election fraud claims by habitual liars. That doesn't make the claims true.
I really don't understand what you are trying to do other than distract.
I'm Canadian and don't technically have a dog in this race, but I do enjoy calling people out on convictions they present but deep down don't earnestly hold.
Would you be open to a $10,000 bet that the 2028 election is, as decided by unbiased international publications (BBC, Reuters, etc.), fair?
Would you be open to a $10,000 bet that the 2028 election is, as decided by unbiased international publications (BBC, Reuters, etc.), fair?
Obviously we're not actually going to make that bet personally, with each other, because a) we are random people on the internet, and setting up some sort of trustworthy bet/escrow system is more work than I want to get into, and b) I will likely forget about this subthread by tomorrow, but:
Yes, if there was some sort of prediction market around that, I would absolutely make that bet. My rationale:
Elections are run by each individual state, not by the federal government. The federal government certainly has the ability to set standards for those elections (and something like the SAVE Act, if passed, will disproportionately disenfranchise likely-Democrat voters), but election integrity is managed by the states. The states don't really have an incentive to mess with their elections. Deep blue and deep red states will get the outcome that likely-of-the-same-party election officials expect/want without the need for any meddling. Swing states generally have enough people in power from both parties that those elections are going to be watched very closely by people who will call out irregularities and provide actual evidence of such, if it truly exists.
The only thing I'm worried about is legal disenfranchisement, but it's unclear if anything new there that happens in the next 3.5 years could meaningfully swing an election.
Regardless, I am less worried about 2028 than I am about the mid-terms in 2026. Not worried election-integrity wise... just worried about the Democrats getting their shit together and retaking at least one of the houses of Congress (and if they can only take one, preferably the Senate, even though that will likely be the more difficult one, as usual).
Yes, if there was some sort of prediction market around that, I would absolutely make that bet. My rationale:
Elections are run by each individual state, not by the federal government. The federal government certainly has the ability to set standards for those elections (and something like the SAVE Act, if passed, will disproportionately disenfranchise likely-Democrat voters), but election integrity is managed by the states. The states don't really have an incentive to mess with their elections. Deep blue and deep red states will get the outcome that likely-of-the-same-party election officials expect/want without the need for any meddling. Swing states generally have enough people in power from both parties that those elections are going to be watched very closely by people who will call out irregularities and provide actual evidence of such, if it truly exists.
The only thing I'm worried about is legal disenfranchisement, but it's unclear if anything new there that happens in the next 3.5 years could meaningfully swing an election.
Regardless, I am less worried about 2028 than I am about the mid-terms in 2026. Not worried election-integrity wise... just worried about the Democrats getting their shit together and retaking at least one of the houses of Congress (and if they can only take one, preferably the Senate, even though that will likely be the more difficult one, as usual).
If you're being honest about your position that 2028 won't be a fair election, I'm effectively offering you free money, right? There are loads of bet/escrow systems out there - I'd be happy to do all the facilitation myself.
I think most folks believe at this point the election itself will be fair. The real question is whether those in power will accept the election results or not.
That's not really the point, though. Elections for federal offices are run by the states. The Trumpers can complain all they want about voter fraud and vote manipulation, but if the evidence isn't there (which it almost certainly won't be), then it will be a fair and free election.
Obviously I would prefer if these morons on the right wouldn't fall for Trump's conspiracy bullshit, as democracy functions much better when everyone has faith in the integrity of elections. But as long as the elections are fair, that's still something in the "plus" column.
Obviously I would prefer if these morons on the right wouldn't fall for Trump's conspiracy bullshit, as democracy functions much better when everyone has faith in the integrity of elections. But as long as the elections are fair, that's still something in the "plus" column.
That's nothing like the current situation. Those claims were based on stupid conspiracy theories with no supporting evidence. Everyone can see what this administration is saying and doing. Trump is telling us that he doesn't respect laws or democracy, and is following that up with action.
[deleted]
That’s why the current administration is going to make sure the other side doesn’t get in power again.
I'm debating on whether they will manage to stir up enough chaos to suspend the constitution, or whether there will be enough independent thought left in the military to oust them when the time comes for new elections - although I can't rule out Russian-style elections, one-man one-vote, and his vote is what counts.
My gut says there will be elections and they might even be "fair" but that there won't be much left to actually govern, having been sold off to corpo looters or just outright destroyed. Trump is his own aggressive buffoon, but ultimately still just a tool of the corpo authoritarians that have had a death grip on this country for decades (at least) - doubly so with the deals he undoubtedly had to make to get a second term to assuage his pitiful ego. Hence the captains of the surveillance industry throwing their support behind him with Musk gaining the de facto executive power.
Can we give this fear-mongering a rest? This is his second term, he didn't topple democracy in his first term and everyone made the same arguments back then.
If anything the democrats were the party to get rid of some of their democratic process. They didn't even vote on their parties candidate, and no, that doesn't scare me either.
Not to mention the democrats had far more private money spent all three times fighting Trump and yet he still won democratically twice and lost once democratically.
The system isn't great or even good, but it's still functioning.
If anything the democrats were the party to get rid of some of their democratic process. They didn't even vote on their parties candidate, and no, that doesn't scare me either.
Not to mention the democrats had far more private money spent all three times fighting Trump and yet he still won democratically twice and lost once democratically.
The system isn't great or even good, but it's still functioning.
He incited an insurrection his first term, that came down to a few people doing the right thing. He learned from that so he's quickly firing everyone he can. He's dismantling the FEC and people who prevent foreign interference in our elections. He even removed the foreign bribery law. If he doesn't topple democracy this time, it won't be for lack of trying.
How did he remove the bribery law? Trump can only issue EOs he cannot issue ( or repel) laws…
He issued an EO directing agencies to not enforce that law. So ‘worst of both worlds’. ‘legal’ as long as he doesn’t change his mind. It also opens up the possibility of selective enforcement to punish anyone he doesn’t like.
> The system isn't great or even good, but it's still functioning.
If it was, we wouldn't have unelected kids breaking and entering in some of the most sensitive government organizations, getting access to private data and dismantling institutions without congressional oversight.
If it was, we wouldn't have unelected kids breaking and entering in some of the most sensitive government organizations, getting access to private data and dismantling institutions without congressional oversight.
He didn't topple the system but it wasn't for lack of trying. Pence had to refuse Trump's repeated requests to fix the election (a precedent that would have guaranteed single-party rule). You are relying now, as you were then, on other people in the system conducting themselves with integrity. If it were up to Trump, Biden would never have assumed office.
Yeah, and a car with a knocking engine and multiple warning lights can still drive for thousands of miles before the engine explodes.
How many more alarms before you start taking the situation seriously? Complacency like what you suggest will be the order of the day right until things break, and then everyone will forget they thought this way and talk about how obvious it all was. Granted I don't have any solutions at hand, but better to start thinking about them now than later.
How many more alarms before you start taking the situation seriously? Complacency like what you suggest will be the order of the day right until things break, and then everyone will forget they thought this way and talk about how obvious it all was. Granted I don't have any solutions at hand, but better to start thinking about them now than later.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> he didn't topple democracy in his first term
Oh, like, he wasn’t really informed nor involved in January 6, 2021?
And he never mentioned, several times in 2024 that you Americans wouldn’t have to vote anymore?
Oh, like, he wasn’t really informed nor involved in January 6, 2021?
And he never mentioned, several times in 2024 that you Americans wouldn’t have to vote anymore?
It's not fear-mongering; it's rooted in reasonable predictions based on what's different between 2017 and 2025:
1. Trump and his cronies didn't seem like they actually expected to win in 2016. They weren't prepared. Now we have Project 2025 and DOGE.
2. Trump's first-term cabinet picks and other political appointees (hell, even his VP) were not chosen all that well, in that they weren't fully bootlicking Trump loyalists. Many of them pushed back on some of the crazy things Trump wanted to do. This time, everyone has been hand-picked for their loyalty and agreement with advancing the agenda in Project 2025.
3. Members of the civil service also pushed back during his first term in ways of their own, slowing things down, and making the more destructive things hard to do. Now the civil service is being gutted.
4. In 2017, Trump hadn't yet packed federal courts and SCOTUS with hard-right loyalists. That's done now, and more will come.
5. There were Republicans in Congress during his first term -- even if not many -- who disagreed with Trump, and were willing to do so publicly. They voted against the more destructive things that Trump wanted. Some even voted to impeach/convict him! But today, Congress is stepping back and letting Trump do what he wants. Certainly what he wants in the executive branch will only get him so far; eventually he will need Congress to pass things to advance his agenda. But many of those uncomfortable Republicans who were present during his first term have retired or been replaced with card-carrying MAGA members.
If a Democrat wins the presidency in 2028 (which I think is certainly possible; one thing that I'm not that concerned about is the integrity of our state-run elections), I'm worried that there won't be much of an executive branch left for that president to be in charge of, and will spend nearly all of that 4-year term rebuilding what was destroyed, if they're even able to do so, both logistically and legally.
1. Trump and his cronies didn't seem like they actually expected to win in 2016. They weren't prepared. Now we have Project 2025 and DOGE.
2. Trump's first-term cabinet picks and other political appointees (hell, even his VP) were not chosen all that well, in that they weren't fully bootlicking Trump loyalists. Many of them pushed back on some of the crazy things Trump wanted to do. This time, everyone has been hand-picked for their loyalty and agreement with advancing the agenda in Project 2025.
3. Members of the civil service also pushed back during his first term in ways of their own, slowing things down, and making the more destructive things hard to do. Now the civil service is being gutted.
4. In 2017, Trump hadn't yet packed federal courts and SCOTUS with hard-right loyalists. That's done now, and more will come.
5. There were Republicans in Congress during his first term -- even if not many -- who disagreed with Trump, and were willing to do so publicly. They voted against the more destructive things that Trump wanted. Some even voted to impeach/convict him! But today, Congress is stepping back and letting Trump do what he wants. Certainly what he wants in the executive branch will only get him so far; eventually he will need Congress to pass things to advance his agenda. But many of those uncomfortable Republicans who were present during his first term have retired or been replaced with card-carrying MAGA members.
If a Democrat wins the presidency in 2028 (which I think is certainly possible; one thing that I'm not that concerned about is the integrity of our state-run elections), I'm worried that there won't be much of an executive branch left for that president to be in charge of, and will spend nearly all of that 4-year term rebuilding what was destroyed, if they're even able to do so, both logistically and legally.
nicebyte(2)
If you have to count on the military to save you, you are lost already.
I'm not in the US, but I used to admire them, and I certainly understand that whatever happens to the US has a huge impact on the rest of the world. They used to be the backstop guarantee for democracy in the west, but now they've turned their back on allies.
I wouldn’t even say ‘turned their backs on’ - more, ‘are actively trying to shake down’.
Being ignored would be a blessing here.
Being ignored would be a blessing here.
This is an example of what I like to call the "both sides fallacy". There are several reasons why people try and make a both sides equivalence in US politics. For example:
- As a way of not having to know anything while appearing intellectual or somehow "above it all";
- Genuine and fundamental misunderstanding of the political forces in the US. Example: thinking there's such a thing as "socialism" or "the far left" in America;
- To knowingly deflect from the excesses of the conservative movement.
Here are the two political forces in American politics:
1. The fascist party who has had a 50+ year project to take over and subvert every aspect of government to destroy any aspect of democracy and create a neofuedal dystopia masquerading as a Christian theocracy; and
2. The controlled opposition party who loves nothing more than to be out of power and, when in power, to do nothing. It's why Democrats not in office are suddenly for progressive policies like medicare-for-all (as Kamala Harris was in 2019) but when on the cusp of taking power, they have a policy of no longer opposing the death penalty, capitulating to right-wing immigratino policy, arming a genocidal apartheid state and the only tax breaks proposed are for startups.
Look at how successful progressive voter initatives were in the last election compared to the performance of the Democratic Party. Florida overwhelmingly passed recreational marijuana and abortion access (~57% for, unfortunately you need 60%+ to pass in Florida) while Trump carried the state by 14. Minimum wage increases passed in deep red Missouri. In fact, abortion access has never failed to garner a mjaority of votes whenever it's allowed to be put in front of voters, no matter how deep red the state.
So why if progressive policies are so popular, are the Democrats so opposed to them as a platform? Really think about that. The Democratic Party doesn't exist to abuse power. It exists to destroy progressive momentum at every level of government above all else.
- As a way of not having to know anything while appearing intellectual or somehow "above it all";
- Genuine and fundamental misunderstanding of the political forces in the US. Example: thinking there's such a thing as "socialism" or "the far left" in America;
- To knowingly deflect from the excesses of the conservative movement.
Here are the two political forces in American politics:
1. The fascist party who has had a 50+ year project to take over and subvert every aspect of government to destroy any aspect of democracy and create a neofuedal dystopia masquerading as a Christian theocracy; and
2. The controlled opposition party who loves nothing more than to be out of power and, when in power, to do nothing. It's why Democrats not in office are suddenly for progressive policies like medicare-for-all (as Kamala Harris was in 2019) but when on the cusp of taking power, they have a policy of no longer opposing the death penalty, capitulating to right-wing immigratino policy, arming a genocidal apartheid state and the only tax breaks proposed are for startups.
Look at how successful progressive voter initatives were in the last election compared to the performance of the Democratic Party. Florida overwhelmingly passed recreational marijuana and abortion access (~57% for, unfortunately you need 60%+ to pass in Florida) while Trump carried the state by 14. Minimum wage increases passed in deep red Missouri. In fact, abortion access has never failed to garner a mjaority of votes whenever it's allowed to be put in front of voters, no matter how deep red the state.
So why if progressive policies are so popular, are the Democrats so opposed to them as a platform? Really think about that. The Democratic Party doesn't exist to abuse power. It exists to destroy progressive momentum at every level of government above all else.
Yeah, it's the higher-amplitude wobbles of a complex system before it snaps and finds a new equilibrium.
[deleted]
> having our judicial branch become openly partisan
A lot of the decisions that have been flagged as "openly partisan" are just the Supreme Court saying exactly what you're saying: the executive branch and judicial branch don't have the authority to write laws and both branches should really stop writing laws and force Congress to do that.
We will see this year and in coming years whether this Supreme Court is partisan or just activist in tearing down executive authority. If they uphold this administration's opinions about executive power, then yes, they're blatantly partisan and have no integrity. If they stand in the way, then maybe they just finally had the numbers to rein in the executive branch like conservatives have been arguing for for generations.
I don't think we have enough information at this point to judge which is more likely (though I know most here will disagree with me on that point).
A lot of the decisions that have been flagged as "openly partisan" are just the Supreme Court saying exactly what you're saying: the executive branch and judicial branch don't have the authority to write laws and both branches should really stop writing laws and force Congress to do that.
We will see this year and in coming years whether this Supreme Court is partisan or just activist in tearing down executive authority. If they uphold this administration's opinions about executive power, then yes, they're blatantly partisan and have no integrity. If they stand in the way, then maybe they just finally had the numbers to rein in the executive branch like conservatives have been arguing for for generations.
I don't think we have enough information at this point to judge which is more likely (though I know most here will disagree with me on that point).
What say you of the Trump vs United States (appropriately named) ruling that gives the president immunity from crimes committed while in office? Does that align with the idea that SCOTUS may reign in presidential power?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States_(2024...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States_(2024...
I think that decision was wrong, but I don't think we can necessarily use that as a template for future SCOTUS decisions about the things Trump might do. During his first term (even after he'd appointed justices), there were still rulings that went against Trump's administration. Just as during Biden's time in office, there were rulings in favor of his administration. While I do not like the ideological bent of the current Supreme Court, it is not clear that they are in favor of the dismantling of government through illegal means.
(A nit: the word you're looking for is "rein", as in the thing you hold when riding a horse, not "reign", the ruling period of a monarch.)
(A nit: the word you're looking for is "rein", as in the thing you hold when riding a horse, not "reign", the ruling period of a monarch.)
The article you attached does not say that the ruling gives the president immunity from all crimes committed while in office.
That's the practical effect of the ruling. It would have prevented Nixon from being prosecuted.
Maybe, maybe not. It's not clear that Nixon's legal team could have successfully argued that planting listening devices in the DNC offices would constitute an "official act" of presidential power.
I would hope that, in this hypothetical reality, a judge and jury would still find that laughable.
Even if such a ruling would have kept Nixon safe from prosecution, Congress still could have impeached him, and at least that would have kicked him out of office.
Of course, Nixon was preemptively pardoned, so we didn't even get to see how that would have played out in the reality of the time.
I would hope that, in this hypothetical reality, a judge and jury would still find that laughable.
Even if such a ruling would have kept Nixon safe from prosecution, Congress still could have impeached him, and at least that would have kicked him out of office.
Of course, Nixon was preemptively pardoned, so we didn't even get to see how that would have played out in the reality of the time.
Having a permanent bureaucracy that ignores directives from the executive only really benefits democrats (look at the Washington DC presidential vote totals). So this executive order is not a both sides thing, or about executive overreach.
Something like the REINS Act, forcing regulations to be voted on by congress, would be something that hurts both sides & prevents executive overreach.
Something like the REINS Act, forcing regulations to be voted on by congress, would be something that hurts both sides & prevents executive overreach.
I’d note that the Washington DC vote totals mainly reflect people who live in the District proper, most of whom are not federal civil servants. Plenty of those seem to live in the Virginia and Maryland suburbs, or closer to their federal workplaces in other parts of the United States.
Something tells me presidential vote totals around Fort Bragg or Oak Ridge—both home to notable numbers of career federal employees—might give a different impression.
E.g. https://news.clearancejobs.com/2025/01/18/the-data-shows-whe...
Something tells me presidential vote totals around Fort Bragg or Oak Ridge—both home to notable numbers of career federal employees—might give a different impression.
E.g. https://news.clearancejobs.com/2025/01/18/the-data-shows-whe...
> look at the Washington DC presidential vote totals
Most federal civil servants live in Maryland or Virginia, not in DC.
Most federal civil servants live in Maryland or Virginia, not in DC.
>This new administration lays bare what we've known all along - the legislative gridlock and dysfunction in the house of representatives and senate has made them completely incapable of governing -- the least productive in a generation.
Yet GOP senators were more than happy to claim credit for infrastructure funding that they opposed.
Yet GOP senators were more than happy to claim credit for infrastructure funding that they opposed.
Trump also rubbished the trade deals that he himself signed!
Mistaking a well-funded, highly coordinated project that started over 15 years ago[1] for 'those clowns in Congress are at it again!' is a huge part of what has prevented us from digging out of this crisis.
[1] e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP
[1] e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP
This is the key point. This dysfunction was _by design_. The Republican party has been working on this since Nixon was impeached. Through redistricting, Fox News, and changing politics to "warfare" by Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh and their ilk, through McConnell stonewalling Congress and refusing to hear judicial nominations.
The Democrats are complicit by trying too hard to play by the rules and take the high road, but it's not a fair comparison of culpability in the slightest.
The Democrats are complicit by trying too hard to play by the rules and take the high road, but it's not a fair comparison of culpability in the slightest.
Yes.
A good example is immigration policy. Setting immigration policy is an enumerated power of Congress. The executive branch has no say at all. Congress failed to revise immigration policy when it got out of sync with facts on the ground. That led to the current mess.
The last attempt to overhaul immigration policy was in 2006.[1] Arguably, this was more workable than what we have now. It combined tough enforcement with a path to citizenship. It had supporters from both parties. The House and Senate did not agree on terms and no bill was passed.
So, instead of reform, we had weak enforcement, now followed by strong enforcement. What we have isn't working.
We need something like that bill now. Has anyone introduced a comprehensive reform bill in Congress? No, as far as I can see from reading through the immigration bills in the hopper. The current bills are either minor tweaks or PR exercises.[2]
Beat on your congressional representatives. We need an immigration law that works. It's Congress' job to argue over how it should work, and to come up with something that, when enforced, still works. We don't have that now. Immigrants are screaming about being deported, legal residents are screaming about being caught up in raids, and farmers are screaming about losing their labor force.[3] This is the moment to do something.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Immigration_Refo...
[2] https://www.newsweek.com/immigration-bills-republicans-congr...
[3] https://www.axios.com/local/chicago/2025/01/27/business-lead...
A good example is immigration policy. Setting immigration policy is an enumerated power of Congress. The executive branch has no say at all. Congress failed to revise immigration policy when it got out of sync with facts on the ground. That led to the current mess.
The last attempt to overhaul immigration policy was in 2006.[1] Arguably, this was more workable than what we have now. It combined tough enforcement with a path to citizenship. It had supporters from both parties. The House and Senate did not agree on terms and no bill was passed.
So, instead of reform, we had weak enforcement, now followed by strong enforcement. What we have isn't working.
We need something like that bill now. Has anyone introduced a comprehensive reform bill in Congress? No, as far as I can see from reading through the immigration bills in the hopper. The current bills are either minor tweaks or PR exercises.[2]
Beat on your congressional representatives. We need an immigration law that works. It's Congress' job to argue over how it should work, and to come up with something that, when enforced, still works. We don't have that now. Immigrants are screaming about being deported, legal residents are screaming about being caught up in raids, and farmers are screaming about losing their labor force.[3] This is the moment to do something.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Immigration_Refo...
[2] https://www.newsweek.com/immigration-bills-republicans-congr...
[3] https://www.axios.com/local/chicago/2025/01/27/business-lead...
> This is the moment to do something.
How so? I don't really have any confidence that the current Congress (regardless of which party we're talking about) could agree on anything but what you pointed out -- minor tweaks.
How so? I don't really have any confidence that the current Congress (regardless of which party we're talking about) could agree on anything but what you pointed out -- minor tweaks.
Most dictorships started by the people in power streamlining decadent processes and burocracy, by putting into place the new regulations that would improve everything.
Until a couple years later on average, a state protection organism gets put in place to check those organisations are working as expected.
Eventually, the state protection organism gets a bit carried away on what they are supposed to be checking on.
Until a couple years later on average, a state protection organism gets put in place to check those organisations are working as expected.
Eventually, the state protection organism gets a bit carried away on what they are supposed to be checking on.
I don't think so.
"Nearly half of dictatorships start as a military coup, though others have been started by foreign intervention, elected officials ending competitive elections, insurgent takeovers, popular uprisings by citizens, or legal maneuvering by autocratic elites to take power within their government. Between 1946 and 2010, 42% of dictatorships began by overthrowing a different dictatorship, and 26% began after achieving independence from a foreign government. Many others developed following a period of warlordism." [1]
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship (see "Formation")
"Nearly half of dictatorships start as a military coup, though others have been started by foreign intervention, elected officials ending competitive elections, insurgent takeovers, popular uprisings by citizens, or legal maneuvering by autocratic elites to take power within their government. Between 1946 and 2010, 42% of dictatorships began by overthrowing a different dictatorship, and 26% began after achieving independence from a foreign government. Many others developed following a period of warlordism." [1]
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship (see "Formation")
I might be wrong on being most, and eventually they might even be in minority, still some well known across Europe, have started with people that originally were democratically elected deciding that it was about time to change everything from inside.
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship (see "Formation")
Maybe worth considering:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup
Also "How Hitler Dismantled a Democracy in 53 Days":
* https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive...
Maybe worth considering:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup
Also "How Hitler Dismantled a Democracy in 53 Days":
* https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive...
> Nearly half of dictatorships start as a military coup
do you see jan 16 as a military coup? Coz i do. Just because the people involved are poorly equipped, and badly organized, doesn't mean it isn't.
We, as a nation, did not punish them hard enough. We as a nation, did not cut the hydra at their head, and allowed it to fester. It is done, perhaps, as a form of peace keeping and appeasement.
But history has taught us that appeasement does not work. So once again, those who failed to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
do you see jan 16 as a military coup? Coz i do. Just because the people involved are poorly equipped, and badly organized, doesn't mean it isn't.
We, as a nation, did not punish them hard enough. We as a nation, did not cut the hydra at their head, and allowed it to fester. It is done, perhaps, as a form of peace keeping and appeasement.
But history has taught us that appeasement does not work. So once again, those who failed to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
By definition it was not a military coup, because the US military did not participate in it.
Sure, some people were private militia members, but that is not the same thing.
Sure, some people were private militia members, but that is not the same thing.
> the legislative gridlock and dysfunction in the house of representatives and senate has made them completely incapable of governing -- the least productive in a generation.
They governed well enough until January 20.
> This is opened up an opportunity for a well funded strongman, and the checks and balances that were intended to protect our democracy are now mere suggestions.
Creating gridlock and dysfunction is an intentional (and well-known) strategy to create a strongman. Most of the gridlock and dysfunction are on one side. You can call that partisan but even they oppose even the most simple, inescable issues such as paying debt. Back under Obama, the GOP in Congress openly said that their goal was to make government a failure under Obama.
They governed well enough until January 20.
> This is opened up an opportunity for a well funded strongman, and the checks and balances that were intended to protect our democracy are now mere suggestions.
Creating gridlock and dysfunction is an intentional (and well-known) strategy to create a strongman. Most of the gridlock and dysfunction are on one side. You can call that partisan but even they oppose even the most simple, inescable issues such as paying debt. Back under Obama, the GOP in Congress openly said that their goal was to make government a failure under Obama.
This is the thing that drives me nuts, especially when someone smugly trots out the "Democrats and Republicans are the same" nonsense.
Even when Republicans are in power, Democrats don't resort to blatantly obstructionist measures to mess with a Republican administration.
Democrats don't refuse to consider judicial nominations because "it's a presidential election year", and then hypocritically rush through a SCOTUS appointment right at the end of a presidential term.
Sure, they do things like vote down a debt ceiling increase when it's paired with some completely unrelated legislation that they don't agree with. But when the power balance is reversed, Republicans will vote down a debt ceiling increase if it's not paired with some completely unrelated legislation that they want.
(I wish there was something in the constitution that required that each bit of legislation be single-topic. Certainly that would still be open to interpretation. But I think at the very least it would eliminate the more obvious examples of abusive brinkmanship.)
Even when Republicans are in power, Democrats don't resort to blatantly obstructionist measures to mess with a Republican administration.
Democrats don't refuse to consider judicial nominations because "it's a presidential election year", and then hypocritically rush through a SCOTUS appointment right at the end of a presidential term.
Sure, they do things like vote down a debt ceiling increase when it's paired with some completely unrelated legislation that they don't agree with. But when the power balance is reversed, Republicans will vote down a debt ceiling increase if it's not paired with some completely unrelated legislation that they want.
(I wish there was something in the constitution that required that each bit of legislation be single-topic. Certainly that would still be open to interpretation. But I think at the very least it would eliminate the more obvious examples of abusive brinkmanship.)
> legislative gridlock and dysfunction
Isn't this a direct result of "no compromise" policies on one side of the aisle?
Isn't this a direct result of "no compromise" policies on one side of the aisle?
Right, democrats were ALWAYS looking for compromise. Hell, democrats have to compromise with their own party!
If you doubt me, simply go read votes from the past 20 years, and compare it with say 1960-1980. Republicans do not cross the aisle anymore.
The interesting part is that at some point republicans had so propagandized their voters against the very concept of governance that "Elect me to office for the next 6 years and I promise nothing will get done" was a decades long strategy that worked! The more republicans obstructed, including preventing republican voters from getting things they claim to want, the more republicans got voted in. For decades now, republicans that compromise with democrats have been primaried by less collaborative republicans.
Imagine a judge getting elected for insisting they will never hear another case!
None of this should be controversial, republican politicians have literally stated this as their goal and promise.
If you doubt me, simply go read votes from the past 20 years, and compare it with say 1960-1980. Republicans do not cross the aisle anymore.
The interesting part is that at some point republicans had so propagandized their voters against the very concept of governance that "Elect me to office for the next 6 years and I promise nothing will get done" was a decades long strategy that worked! The more republicans obstructed, including preventing republican voters from getting things they claim to want, the more republicans got voted in. For decades now, republicans that compromise with democrats have been primaried by less collaborative republicans.
Imagine a judge getting elected for insisting they will never hear another case!
None of this should be controversial, republican politicians have literally stated this as their goal and promise.
This even happens at a local level. I witnessed a Republican county councilor who was beginning to work with a local community on a serious issue they were having with their ferry. She got replaced with someone who wants to obstruct and cut in all cases, which serves as an object lesson for anyone else on the council with an at-risk seat.
For some reason the people who keep saying government doesn't work are working very hard to make government not work.
For some reason the people who keep saying government doesn't work are working very hard to make government not work.
> For some reason
Fairly obvious what that reason is.
It's the same reason Putin supports Trump -- if you yourself are threatened by something (democracy) then you need to go make that thing a joke.
Fairly obvious what that reason is.
It's the same reason Putin supports Trump -- if you yourself are threatened by something (democracy) then you need to go make that thing a joke.
For those looking for something to Google or concrete facts to back this up, "obstructionism" is the proper term for this.
Some key examples: Reagan saying "the government is the problem", Newt Gingrich starting the modern obstructionist movement in congress with the Contact with America (also backed by the Heritage Foundation, which is behind project 2025), and Mitch McConnel breaking norms to practically shut down congress under his leadership, openly stating his intent several times.
Republicans don't want to lead in any practical sense. They want to break the government and privatize the pieces so they can buy in and profit off of them. Anyone who can't buy in gets screwed, because services will cost more to pay for the investment and profits that the investors demand.
Trump's biggest achievement last term was a massive tax cut for the rich. So to balance to budget, they now want to destroy as many government services as they can, using "efficiency" as an excuse.
Breaking things is great when you run a social media company. Worst case scenario, your website goes offline for a few hours. When you start breaking the government, people die. Of course, if you're richer than God, you don't have to worry about the fallout. It doesnt matter if the FDA falls apart and leads to massive food contamination when you only eat Wagyu beef from your private ranch. People will die, you pay less taxes, and you only see it as a success.
There are many other critiques to be made, but this is just the surface.
Some key examples: Reagan saying "the government is the problem", Newt Gingrich starting the modern obstructionist movement in congress with the Contact with America (also backed by the Heritage Foundation, which is behind project 2025), and Mitch McConnel breaking norms to practically shut down congress under his leadership, openly stating his intent several times.
Republicans don't want to lead in any practical sense. They want to break the government and privatize the pieces so they can buy in and profit off of them. Anyone who can't buy in gets screwed, because services will cost more to pay for the investment and profits that the investors demand.
Trump's biggest achievement last term was a massive tax cut for the rich. So to balance to budget, they now want to destroy as many government services as they can, using "efficiency" as an excuse.
Breaking things is great when you run a social media company. Worst case scenario, your website goes offline for a few hours. When you start breaking the government, people die. Of course, if you're richer than God, you don't have to worry about the fallout. It doesnt matter if the FDA falls apart and leads to massive food contamination when you only eat Wagyu beef from your private ranch. People will die, you pay less taxes, and you only see it as a success.
There are many other critiques to be made, but this is just the surface.
I recently watched a 2 hour congressional committee session, with 5 minute talking points per member. BOTH sides of the aisle used their entire 5 minutes to spout one-sided rhetoric and talking points obviously designed for re-election rather than anything resembling debate or conversation.
I have no idea which side "started it", but where we've landed isn't useful.
I have no idea which side "started it", but where we've landed isn't useful.
Yes, and the filibuster.
The causes are more complicated.
The founding fathers envisioned the legislature be slow and deliberate, so it was never intended to move quickly.
One major party doesn’t think government solves any problems, so it’s not incentivized to use it to solve any problems. In fact, a generation of Republicans have tried to stifle fixing any of the large problems.
The other party is frequently torn between a wide spectrum of “do everything for citizens in a wide swath of policy areas” and “neoliberal free market capitalism”, so they can’t even agree when they are in majority how to weird their political capital.
The rest is usually downstream of sound-byte media (stripping out nuance and polarization of media outlets), paid advertising scaremongering voters (money in politics), and electoral engineering like gerrymandering (legislators picking voters instead of the inverse).
The founding fathers envisioned the legislature be slow and deliberate, so it was never intended to move quickly.
One major party doesn’t think government solves any problems, so it’s not incentivized to use it to solve any problems. In fact, a generation of Republicans have tried to stifle fixing any of the large problems.
The other party is frequently torn between a wide spectrum of “do everything for citizens in a wide swath of policy areas” and “neoliberal free market capitalism”, so they can’t even agree when they are in majority how to weird their political capital.
The rest is usually downstream of sound-byte media (stripping out nuance and polarization of media outlets), paid advertising scaremongering voters (money in politics), and electoral engineering like gerrymandering (legislators picking voters instead of the inverse).
Agreed on this - the country is founded on a deep skepticism of government oversight. Some of what we see today is cultural blowback for those who think that core value has been lost by dems.
I'd also put out that the lessons of the Tea Party (Gingrich style) have not been lost on modern people with political goals -- a fairly small group has used the heavy party whipping that the Republicans use to become an important swing vote / caucus -- and the republican party was more amenable/vulnerable to this sort of tactic, precisely for cultural reasons embedded in the Republican party's history, governance and setup.
I'd also put out that the lessons of the Tea Party (Gingrich style) have not been lost on modern people with political goals -- a fairly small group has used the heavy party whipping that the Republicans use to become an important swing vote / caucus -- and the republican party was more amenable/vulnerable to this sort of tactic, precisely for cultural reasons embedded in the Republican party's history, governance and setup.
> so they can’t even agree when they are in majority how to weird their political capital.
"Weird" is a presumably a typo there, but I think it actually works as-is. As long as we allow for the verbing of adjectives, anyway.
"Weird" is a presumably a typo there, but I think it actually works as-is. As long as we allow for the verbing of adjectives, anyway.
No, it's the lack of representation. We're an extreme outlier among OECD countries, worst representation in the free world. Even Communist China has better representation. The U.S. in the 1790s had representation in line with Nordic countries today.
The only change needed is repealing the Apportionment Act of 1929.
The only change needed is repealing the Apportionment Act of 1929.
Re the Apportionment Act of 1929 -- care to elaborate? Are there figures for "the worst representation in the free world"?
My impression is that there are many reasons for the dysfunction of congress; the media feedback control system (in a literal and metaphorical sense) plays an important role, as does the filibuster, lobbyists, and other corruption.
(Aside: in aging, an organisms feedback and homeostatic systems tend to degrade / become simpler with time, which leads to decreased function / cancer etc. While some degree of refactoring & dead-code cruft-removal is necessary - and hopefully is happening now, as I think most Americans desire - the explicit decline in operational structure is bad. (Not that you'd want a systems biologist to run the country.))
My impression is that there are many reasons for the dysfunction of congress; the media feedback control system (in a literal and metaphorical sense) plays an important role, as does the filibuster, lobbyists, and other corruption.
(Aside: in aging, an organisms feedback and homeostatic systems tend to degrade / become simpler with time, which leads to decreased function / cancer etc. While some degree of refactoring & dead-code cruft-removal is necessary - and hopefully is happening now, as I think most Americans desire - the explicit decline in operational structure is bad. (Not that you'd want a systems biologist to run the country.))
Not the parent, but broadly agree that a change to apportionment would heavily change the US for the better. I don't think it would be a single fix for the country, but I think it would greatly help quite a few of the issues.
Originally there were about 35k constituents/rep. Today it's an average of ~750k constituents/rep, with some districts at over a million.
This is because of the Apportionment Act of 1929 capped the number of reps. If we had the same constituent/rep ratio, we'd have ~10k reps total.
If instead we went back to the constituent/rep ratio that existed originally, a lot of our structural problems go away, via a mechanism that's accessible via US code rather than a change to the constitution.
For instance, the electoral college is based on federal representation. If you expand the house by ~50x, that dominates the electoral college by nearly two orders of magnitude, and creates a very close to popular election.
It's also much much harder to gerrymander on that scale.
That scale would also have a return to a more personal form of politics, where people actually have a real chance to meet with their reps (and the candidates) face to face.
It also feels that by having a much larger, more diffuse legislative body, we'd better approximate truly democratic processes in a representative democratic model.
Originally there were about 35k constituents/rep. Today it's an average of ~750k constituents/rep, with some districts at over a million.
This is because of the Apportionment Act of 1929 capped the number of reps. If we had the same constituent/rep ratio, we'd have ~10k reps total.
If instead we went back to the constituent/rep ratio that existed originally, a lot of our structural problems go away, via a mechanism that's accessible via US code rather than a change to the constitution.
For instance, the electoral college is based on federal representation. If you expand the house by ~50x, that dominates the electoral college by nearly two orders of magnitude, and creates a very close to popular election.
It's also much much harder to gerrymander on that scale.
That scale would also have a return to a more personal form of politics, where people actually have a real chance to meet with their reps (and the candidates) face to face.
It also feels that by having a much larger, more diffuse legislative body, we'd better approximate truly democratic processes in a representative democratic model.
> If you expand the house by ~50x
Wow, that's a lot! I recall reading a piece, I believe in the Washington Post, sometime within the past few years, on this topic. They didn't run the numbers for such a dramatic increase, but I think talked about a House size of around 1000 representatives. And I was surprised to find out that this didn't shift the balance of power as much as I expected it would.
But regardless, as much as I would like for it to be easier for Democrats to win elections (in what would be an entirely fair way for them to do so!), that just puts one party in power more frequently. It doesn't fix the underlying dysfunction.
Wow, that's a lot! I recall reading a piece, I believe in the Washington Post, sometime within the past few years, on this topic. They didn't run the numbers for such a dramatic increase, but I think talked about a House size of around 1000 representatives. And I was surprised to find out that this didn't shift the balance of power as much as I expected it would.
But regardless, as much as I would like for it to be easier for Democrats to win elections (in what would be an entirely fair way for them to do so!), that just puts one party in power more frequently. It doesn't fix the underlying dysfunction.
Biology is a bad example when applied to a government.
Almost all change in biology happens to populations, not individuals. In order for that to apply to governments, we would need to have massive churn and rapid experimentation of government policies and structures. These are not conducive to voter feedback (eg. Democracy) and would be so disruptive to business and life as to make governments useless until they reached some steady state.
I remember hearing that Italy had 52 governments in 50 years. It’s suffering from all of the same problems as the rest of western countries, perhaps somewhat worse than average.
Almost all change in biology happens to populations, not individuals. In order for that to apply to governments, we would need to have massive churn and rapid experimentation of government policies and structures. These are not conducive to voter feedback (eg. Democracy) and would be so disruptive to business and life as to make governments useless until they reached some steady state.
I remember hearing that Italy had 52 governments in 50 years. It’s suffering from all of the same problems as the rest of western countries, perhaps somewhat worse than average.
Increasing the size of the House and fixing apportionment would certainly help with some things, but we need to eliminate gerrymandering too.
It is bonkers to me that legislative districts are drawn by whatever party is in power once every ten years. Not only should the census be more frequent (real-time/ongoing, really, and more lightweight than the system we have now), but districts should be redrawn yearly, and it should be done by a non-partisan committee.
And we really need an objective, quantitative measure of gerrymandering, and comprehensive law against it.
But really I don't think all of that is it. Making representation more proportionate might make Democrats win the House (and possibly presidency, since electoral college votes are apportioned the same way) more often, but the Senate will still be broken, and political polarization will still rule the day.
We need more than two viable political parties (which would require a major overhaul of each and every state's election process, at the least), and they need to govern through coalition-building, more like how parliamentary systems operate.
And ultimately it's just the tone of the whole thing. Legislators need to stop with this all-or-nothing approach, where the biggest hot-button issues don't see any measure of compromise. But that's a culture thing, and you can't fix that with laws or process.
It is bonkers to me that legislative districts are drawn by whatever party is in power once every ten years. Not only should the census be more frequent (real-time/ongoing, really, and more lightweight than the system we have now), but districts should be redrawn yearly, and it should be done by a non-partisan committee.
And we really need an objective, quantitative measure of gerrymandering, and comprehensive law against it.
But really I don't think all of that is it. Making representation more proportionate might make Democrats win the House (and possibly presidency, since electoral college votes are apportioned the same way) more often, but the Senate will still be broken, and political polarization will still rule the day.
We need more than two viable political parties (which would require a major overhaul of each and every state's election process, at the least), and they need to govern through coalition-building, more like how parliamentary systems operate.
And ultimately it's just the tone of the whole thing. Legislators need to stop with this all-or-nothing approach, where the biggest hot-button issues don't see any measure of compromise. But that's a culture thing, and you can't fix that with laws or process.
> This new administration lays bare what we've known all along - the legislative gridlock and dysfunction in the house of representatives and senate has made them completely incapable of governing -- the least productive in a generation.
Some articles which were written a few years ago, but were re-upped recently:
> In a presidential system, by contrast, the president and the congress are elected separately and yet must govern concurrently. If they disagree, they simply disagree. They can point fingers and wave poll results and stomp their feet and talk about “mandates,” but the fact remains that both parties to the dispute won office fair and square. As Linz wrote in his 1990 paper “The Perils of Presidentialism,”[1] when conflict breaks out in such a system, “there is no democratic principle on the basis of which it can be resolved, and the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate.” That’s when the military comes out of the barracks, to resolve the conflict on the basis of something—nationalism, security, pure force—other than democracy.
* https://slate.com/business/2013/10/juan-linz-dies-yale-polit...
> Still, Linz offered several reasons why presidential systems are so prone to crisis. One particularly important one is the nature of the checks and balances system. Since both the president and the Congress are directly elected by the people, they can both claim to speak for the people. When they have a serious disagreement, according to Linz, “there is no democratic principle on the basis of which it can be resolved.” The constitution offers no help in these cases, he wrote: “the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate.”
* https://archive.is/https://www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8120063/amer...
When it has come to presidential systems, the US has been the exception as most others with something the same have not worked out over the long term.
Some articles which were written a few years ago, but were re-upped recently:
> In a presidential system, by contrast, the president and the congress are elected separately and yet must govern concurrently. If they disagree, they simply disagree. They can point fingers and wave poll results and stomp their feet and talk about “mandates,” but the fact remains that both parties to the dispute won office fair and square. As Linz wrote in his 1990 paper “The Perils of Presidentialism,”[1] when conflict breaks out in such a system, “there is no democratic principle on the basis of which it can be resolved, and the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate.” That’s when the military comes out of the barracks, to resolve the conflict on the basis of something—nationalism, security, pure force—other than democracy.
* https://slate.com/business/2013/10/juan-linz-dies-yale-polit...
> Still, Linz offered several reasons why presidential systems are so prone to crisis. One particularly important one is the nature of the checks and balances system. Since both the president and the Congress are directly elected by the people, they can both claim to speak for the people. When they have a serious disagreement, according to Linz, “there is no democratic principle on the basis of which it can be resolved.” The constitution offers no help in these cases, he wrote: “the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate.”
* https://archive.is/https://www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8120063/amer...
When it has come to presidential systems, the US has been the exception as most others with something the same have not worked out over the long term.
Gridlock, disfunction, and completely incapable of governing are a bit loaded, but other than that, a slow moving legislature was a feature built into the system — not a bug.
I don't think they are a bit loaded at all. What have the last several congresses done that has actually helped the populace?
The most notable things I recall in the last few Congresses were Mitch McConell stealing a SCOTUS appointment, the failure to remove Donald Trump from office (twice!--once for inciting an insurrection in front of the eyes of the world; it was literally televised) for political gain, and the voting down of Republicans' own immigration bill (again for political gain).
Thats what happened. Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Thats what happened. Pepperidge Farm remembers.
That... doesn't seem to answer GP's question at all?
Their post seems to have been edited.
My post was not edited. While your post didn't directly answer with examples of what good they did as asked, I felt your response was apropos in recognizing the spirit of the question and provided the most relevant accomplishments.
Fair enough. From my perspective, little has been done to benefit the population, more has been done to cement political power.
> This is opened up an opportunity for a well funded strongman, and the checks and balances that were intended to protect our democracy are now mere suggestions.
Well... most of them are.
Well... most of them are.
Or this opened opportunity for dictator to arise.
I wonder which of these two commonly happened in the past.
I wonder which of these two commonly happened in the past.
Was with you 100% until the second half of your final sentence. Can you clarify?
A bit hyperbolic on my part but I think Trump and Elon are quite a potent combination for the money and media influence they have between them. Members of congress and senators with opposing views are very unlikely to stick their heads up for fear of the immense amount of money that could be used against them in the midterms and beyond.
Michael Bloomberg could personally fund an entire presidential campaign. There’s a newspaper named after him. How did he wield that power?
The real problems with the DNC campaigns are complex. They have a poor model for how to run national campaigns, clearly. All this equities wealth was made under Democrats, including Elon’s wealth, so it’s not so simple as to say, chasing money. There is some consensus that Democrats need to run media personalities instead of experienced politicians. But not enough consensus to move away from demographics-based election modeling. Suffice it to say this thread could be an interesting conversation about anything but has become a magnet for fringe theories.
The real problems with the DNC campaigns are complex. They have a poor model for how to run national campaigns, clearly. All this equities wealth was made under Democrats, including Elon’s wealth, so it’s not so simple as to say, chasing money. There is some consensus that Democrats need to run media personalities instead of experienced politicians. But not enough consensus to move away from demographics-based election modeling. Suffice it to say this thread could be an interesting conversation about anything but has become a magnet for fringe theories.
>> The real problems with the DNC campaigns are complex. They have a poor model for how to run national campaigns, clearly.
The DNC didn't even have a primary last election. They just propped up Kamala and said "here's our candidate" and expected the sheeple to vote for her. Meanwhile one of their best candidates was kicked out of the party a while back and is now Trumps DNI. And if you want to say "they didn't have time" well that's because they figured it was OK to leave a declining old guy in office beyond his sell-by date - yet another poor choice by the DNC.
The DNC didn't even have a primary last election. They just propped up Kamala and said "here's our candidate" and expected the sheeple to vote for her. Meanwhile one of their best candidates was kicked out of the party a while back and is now Trumps DNI. And if you want to say "they didn't have time" well that's because they figured it was OK to leave a declining old guy in office beyond his sell-by date - yet another poor choice by the DNC.
One point of view is, post hoc, ergo proctor hoc, doesn't really tell you anything at all.
Tulsi wasn't one of the Democrat's best candidates.
You know who was? Senator Mark Kelly.
You know who was? Senator Mark Kelly.
> Meanwhile one of their best candidates was kicked out of the party a while back and is now Trumps DNI.
Maybe most electable (though I'm not sure I buy that either), but certainly not best. The simple fact that she's now Trump's DNI makes it clear that she'd been playing for the other team even before her official party switch.
Maybe most electable (though I'm not sure I buy that either), but certainly not best. The simple fact that she's now Trump's DNI makes it clear that she'd been playing for the other team even before her official party switch.
> one of their best candidates was kicked out of the party a while back and is now Trumps DNI
Yeah, and the fact she's working for Trump now is proof that was the right call.
Yeah, and the fact she's working for Trump now is proof that was the right call.
Not the person you're replying to, but my take on it is that the checks and balances -- embodied by the legislative and judicial branches -- are only effective if a) they take action against the executive branch, and b) the executive branch respects them.
Congress is sitting on its hands and seems to be enjoying the view so far, for the most part. Republicans in Congress seem to think it's fine that Trump is usurping power vested in the legislative branch. Or at the very least they're afraid to speak up; every time they do, Trump threatens to primary them during the next election cycle. (I'm honestly not sure which is worse.) Democrats are "waiting for the right pitch to swing at" (paraphrasing Jeffries), as if doing nothing is some sort of strategy. And it's not like they can do anything anyway; certainly they have the power to get proposed legislation passed/not passed if Johnson loses a few GOP votes, but they can't get new legislation on the floor (y'know, like something that says "get DOGE out of the government's computer systems, right now") without the permission of GOP-controlled committees and Mike Johnson.
The courts are doing some things so far, but by their very nature, they're slower to act. But even if they tell Trump he can't do something, Trump doesn't actually have to listen. The executive branch is responsible for the enforcement of laws... and court orders. Let's say a court orders Musk to stop doing something, and he ignores it. Let's then say the court finds Musk in contempt, and orders him jailed. Who is going to arrest him? Not Trump's US Marshals Service, not Trump's FBI, etc.
Congress is sitting on its hands and seems to be enjoying the view so far, for the most part. Republicans in Congress seem to think it's fine that Trump is usurping power vested in the legislative branch. Or at the very least they're afraid to speak up; every time they do, Trump threatens to primary them during the next election cycle. (I'm honestly not sure which is worse.) Democrats are "waiting for the right pitch to swing at" (paraphrasing Jeffries), as if doing nothing is some sort of strategy. And it's not like they can do anything anyway; certainly they have the power to get proposed legislation passed/not passed if Johnson loses a few GOP votes, but they can't get new legislation on the floor (y'know, like something that says "get DOGE out of the government's computer systems, right now") without the permission of GOP-controlled committees and Mike Johnson.
The courts are doing some things so far, but by their very nature, they're slower to act. But even if they tell Trump he can't do something, Trump doesn't actually have to listen. The executive branch is responsible for the enforcement of laws... and court orders. Let's say a court orders Musk to stop doing something, and he ignores it. Let's then say the court finds Musk in contempt, and orders him jailed. Who is going to arrest him? Not Trump's US Marshals Service, not Trump's FBI, etc.
It is telling that you have that interpretation of executive power but not the same of regulatory power.
As proof, this isn't an American problem, it is nothing to do with the US constitution or "gridlock". In most English-speaking countries you have seen: massive increase in power by unelected officials, the vast majority of these officials have identical political views and operate with a political agenda (to be clear, at no point did anyone ask whether this was legal, whether these were "strongmen"), and this effect has paralysed government function in every country.
Even worse, this appears irrespective of clear limits. For example, the US system of political appointments of judges is clearly a bad idea, the incentives are awful, the results are predictable. But the same issue with judges overriding elected officials is occurring in countries where selection is (in theory) non-political.
The reason why is simple: there has never been a greater difference between the lives of the rulers and the ruled. The reason we have democracy is to resolve this problem.
But the US is a particularly extreme case of this: if you look at how government operates in the US, what is the actual connection with people's lives? The filth and decay in US cities is incredible given the amount of government spending...the answer why is simple: the spending is for government, the people don't matter.
Also, US-specific: it is extremely strange to characterise the US as a system of checks and balances if you look at actual real world political history rather than some theoretical imaginings of someone in the late 18th century. Checks and balances have always been dynamic. The reason why the outrage is so vitriolic (and the comparisons to Hitler so frequent...imagine if Hitler fired civil servants or changed regulatory policy, definitely the worst thing he did) is because the people being hit are the people who believed they would always be safe from oversight.
As proof, this isn't an American problem, it is nothing to do with the US constitution or "gridlock". In most English-speaking countries you have seen: massive increase in power by unelected officials, the vast majority of these officials have identical political views and operate with a political agenda (to be clear, at no point did anyone ask whether this was legal, whether these were "strongmen"), and this effect has paralysed government function in every country.
Even worse, this appears irrespective of clear limits. For example, the US system of political appointments of judges is clearly a bad idea, the incentives are awful, the results are predictable. But the same issue with judges overriding elected officials is occurring in countries where selection is (in theory) non-political.
The reason why is simple: there has never been a greater difference between the lives of the rulers and the ruled. The reason we have democracy is to resolve this problem.
But the US is a particularly extreme case of this: if you look at how government operates in the US, what is the actual connection with people's lives? The filth and decay in US cities is incredible given the amount of government spending...the answer why is simple: the spending is for government, the people don't matter.
Also, US-specific: it is extremely strange to characterise the US as a system of checks and balances if you look at actual real world political history rather than some theoretical imaginings of someone in the late 18th century. Checks and balances have always been dynamic. The reason why the outrage is so vitriolic (and the comparisons to Hitler so frequent...imagine if Hitler fired civil servants or changed regulatory policy, definitely the worst thing he did) is because the people being hit are the people who believed they would always be safe from oversight.
> imagine if Hitler fired civil servants
He did. It's called "Gleichschaltung", we learned about it in school. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zgtyvcw/revision/4
He did. It's called "Gleichschaltung", we learned about it in school. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zgtyvcw/revision/4
You completely failed to understand the context of this point (unsurprisingly).
Every government has fired civil servants. The worst thing that Hitler did was not fire civil servants...he got up to some other stuff later that was worse.
Also, quoting a resource for children does not do you much credit. Quote an actual source if you are going to do it.
Every government has fired civil servants. The worst thing that Hitler did was not fire civil servants...he got up to some other stuff later that was worse.
Also, quoting a resource for children does not do you much credit. Quote an actual source if you are going to do it.
The people are intuiting this. I think the next election cycle will see a left wing strongman put in. That one will do damage after cleaning up the damage from the current one. So we’ll yoyo back and forth between strongmen to get shit done because the legislative is useless. Because it’s better to yoyo between extremes than to sit in stagnation. We need some reform or we’re going to be stuck on this roller coaster for a long time.
The "strong" man and his allies are the ones that crippled the legislative branch, except for tax cuts for the rich and appointing unqualified SC justices.
There was bipartisan (Republican-ish) immigration legislation with enough votes pass until Trump told people to vote against it, because he knew that he could blame the problem on his opponents and many people would believe him.
Note that none of this would be possible with Citizens United and dramatic media consolidation in the hands of a few oligarchs. ;-(
There was bipartisan (Republican-ish) immigration legislation with enough votes pass until Trump told people to vote against it, because he knew that he could blame the problem on his opponents and many people would believe him.
Note that none of this would be possible with Citizens United and dramatic media consolidation in the hands of a few oligarchs. ;-(
(NOTE: Largely reposting a Robert Reich bit of writing in the Quoted areas)
FIRST Interesting how, if true, the GOP Political class is now beholden to Musk:
http://youtube.com/post/UgkxTKZoZe_AzdNF8w7X0HO19w6xxH5rGinI...
> Congress is supine because Republicans are in charge, and Musk has also become Trump’s hatchet man — threatening Republican members of Congress if they deviate from Trump.
> Iowa’s Republican Senator Joni Ernst was firmly set against Pete Hegseth for secretary of defense until Musk hinted that he’d finance a primary challenger to Ernst, who’s up for reelection next year. Presto: Ernst supported Hegseth.
> Indiana’s Republican Senator Todd Young expressed concern about the nomination of Tulsi Gabbard to be director of national intelligence until Musk tweeted against him. A besieged Young spoke with JD Vance, who arranged a call with Musk. Presto: Young announced he would back Gabbard.
> Musk warned Republican lawmakers in December that he was compiling a “naughty list” of members who buck Trump’s agenda. He also pledged shortly after Election Day that his political action committee would “play a significant role in primaries” next year.
> A Republican senator told The Hill that Musk’s wealth makes primary threats “a bigger deal.”
SECOND And Interesting how some Media, Wa Po in this case, coincidentally blocked Paid Advertisement advocating an Anti-MUSK Political takt.
> Musk’s financial and political power have been enough to intimidate even the mainstream media. An advertisement set to run in The Washington Post yesterday calling for Musk to be fired from his role in government was abruptly canceled, according to Common Cause, one of the groups that had ordered the ad. When asked why the Post had pulled the ad, the Post said it was not at liberty to give a reason.
FIRST Interesting how, if true, the GOP Political class is now beholden to Musk:
http://youtube.com/post/UgkxTKZoZe_AzdNF8w7X0HO19w6xxH5rGinI...
> Congress is supine because Republicans are in charge, and Musk has also become Trump’s hatchet man — threatening Republican members of Congress if they deviate from Trump.
> Iowa’s Republican Senator Joni Ernst was firmly set against Pete Hegseth for secretary of defense until Musk hinted that he’d finance a primary challenger to Ernst, who’s up for reelection next year. Presto: Ernst supported Hegseth.
> Indiana’s Republican Senator Todd Young expressed concern about the nomination of Tulsi Gabbard to be director of national intelligence until Musk tweeted against him. A besieged Young spoke with JD Vance, who arranged a call with Musk. Presto: Young announced he would back Gabbard.
> Musk warned Republican lawmakers in December that he was compiling a “naughty list” of members who buck Trump’s agenda. He also pledged shortly after Election Day that his political action committee would “play a significant role in primaries” next year.
> A Republican senator told The Hill that Musk’s wealth makes primary threats “a bigger deal.”
SECOND And Interesting how some Media, Wa Po in this case, coincidentally blocked Paid Advertisement advocating an Anti-MUSK Political takt.
> Musk’s financial and political power have been enough to intimidate even the mainstream media. An advertisement set to run in The Washington Post yesterday calling for Musk to be fired from his role in government was abruptly canceled, according to Common Cause, one of the groups that had ordered the ad. When asked why the Post had pulled the ad, the Post said it was not at liberty to give a reason.
Power abhors a vacuum.
So your interpretation of "give the elected official oversight" is that "checks and balances" and "democracy" are "mere suggestions".
You're mistaking: - bureaucracy with democracy - checks and balances with a neo-priesthood
But hey, who needs a functional government when you have a neo-priesthood to keep things 'holy'?"
You're mistaking: - bureaucracy with democracy - checks and balances with a neo-priesthood
But hey, who needs a functional government when you have a neo-priesthood to keep things 'holy'?"
Bureaucracy is what happens with _any_ large system. It's unavoidable, and the best you can do is to build institutions that know how to manage it.
And bureaucracy isn't always bad. State and federal bureaucracies are probably largely responsible for protecting the 2020 US election from fraud and interference.
frugalmail(2)
this is quite similar to anyone familiar with prussia, berlin and the constituent national assembly of 1845 in the context of the historical power struggle between vichy merchant classes and their royal monarchs during the advent of the steam era.
it seems the same play is being made in 2025 at the advent of AI and Tech supremacy as it comes to a headroads with the death of traditional US neoliberalism. Tech is more interested in the monarchy, as was the feudal lords of old, and seeks a neofeudalism while the parliament of our time, the house and senate, prattle on like the Diets and assembly promulgating edicts and regulations that are either wholesale ignored, or gridlocked bike-shedding; fiddling whilst Rome burns.
it seems the same play is being made in 2025 at the advent of AI and Tech supremacy as it comes to a headroads with the death of traditional US neoliberalism. Tech is more interested in the monarchy, as was the feudal lords of old, and seeks a neofeudalism while the parliament of our time, the house and senate, prattle on like the Diets and assembly promulgating edicts and regulations that are either wholesale ignored, or gridlocked bike-shedding; fiddling whilst Rome burns.
Can we drop the "tech" prefix from our neo-feudalism?
Technology is necessarily a progressive force, and feudalism is necessarily a stagnatory conservative structure. The "Tech Supremacy" group is visibly opposed to technology, and it's reflecting more and more on society as they gain power.
Technology is necessarily a progressive force, and feudalism is necessarily a stagnatory conservative structure. The "Tech Supremacy" group is visibly opposed to technology, and it's reflecting more and more on society as they gain power.
> Technology is necessarily a progressive force
Technology is a tool. It is not a culture or a system. In fact, I think state and corporate use of technology for things like surveillance, censorship, frankly pointless jobs that somehow attract VC money, mass propaganda and social media access, data tracking and advertising and behavior modelling to a T, hypothetical pointless-job-destroying-AGI, etc. that are currently in vogue are part of the conservative structure. Technology means moving, but is this outwards or inwards movement?
Technology is a tool. It is not a culture or a system. In fact, I think state and corporate use of technology for things like surveillance, censorship, frankly pointless jobs that somehow attract VC money, mass propaganda and social media access, data tracking and advertising and behavior modelling to a T, hypothetical pointless-job-destroying-AGI, etc. that are currently in vogue are part of the conservative structure. Technology means moving, but is this outwards or inwards movement?
Conservative people just can't create technology. Technology is always progressive.
It can be progressive towards any amount of things, good or bad. But conservatism requires not developing it.
It can be progressive towards any amount of things, good or bad. But conservatism requires not developing it.
I think this is conflating conservatism as a political position and conservatism as an anti-development position. Conservatism as a political position has very little to do with actual developmental changes and way more to do with retaining existing political hierarchies. If a new tool came into existence to enforce a existing caste systems (race, class, whatever) then political conservatism would be for this tool.
Consider reading Rabbit Test by Samantha Mills as a great display of this difference in the context of reproductive rights[0].
https://www.uncannymagazine.com/article/rabbit-test/
Consider reading Rabbit Test by Samantha Mills as a great display of this difference in the context of reproductive rights[0].
https://www.uncannymagazine.com/article/rabbit-test/
> I think this is conflating conservatism as a political position and conservatism as an anti-development position.
In absolutely no place in either comment I mentioned political movements, parties, or anything like that.
In absolutely no place in either comment I mentioned political movements, parties, or anything like that.
Your own introduction of the term was alongside feudalism, which most would say is "something like" a political movement
Well yes, the term conservatism is ambiguous as it means different things in different contexts. I'm suggesting you're conflating this.
No, because it's enabled by the tech industry and tech figures. It's not big pharma or big oil that has anywhere near as much lobbying power or money.
So... "tech industry" is the name we give to the companies investing heavily on stopping technological improvements?
And yes, I know that it is. It's just, can we drop the Orwellianism and change the name?
And yes, I know that it is. It's just, can we drop the Orwellianism and change the name?
This is the sad reality of oligarchy. Red/blue culture wars appeal to some people because they would prefer an authoritarianism that at least pretends to have their back 50 percent of the time over rich people (their employers) who have their back 0 percent of the time.
No one wants (and I don’t think anyone should want) bipartisanship, not really. Bipartisanship means the rich get everything they want—efficiently. It means the meetings of the club we aren’t in happen on time and no one ends up with a black eye. That’s also an unacceptable outcome. Of course, it can be argued that the outcome we are getting is basically the same thing, but with cheap depressing entertainment and widespread governmental dysfunction.
Of course, anyone who thinks voting for any of these right-wing figures will end oligarchy is delusional. Their charisma comes from the fact that, because they hate basically everyone, they also incidentally hate many of the other oligarchs. But nothing good happens when people vote for hate, and none of these pricks will ever end oligarchy since they are all part of it. The Nazis truly did present themselves as somewhat socialist (it was in the name) in the early 1920s to gain their first followers, but as soon as they were in power, they realized they had more to gain by siding with the industrialists and against labor, which is of course what they did.
No one wants (and I don’t think anyone should want) bipartisanship, not really. Bipartisanship means the rich get everything they want—efficiently. It means the meetings of the club we aren’t in happen on time and no one ends up with a black eye. That’s also an unacceptable outcome. Of course, it can be argued that the outcome we are getting is basically the same thing, but with cheap depressing entertainment and widespread governmental dysfunction.
Of course, anyone who thinks voting for any of these right-wing figures will end oligarchy is delusional. Their charisma comes from the fact that, because they hate basically everyone, they also incidentally hate many of the other oligarchs. But nothing good happens when people vote for hate, and none of these pricks will ever end oligarchy since they are all part of it. The Nazis truly did present themselves as somewhat socialist (it was in the name) in the early 1920s to gain their first followers, but as soon as they were in power, they realized they had more to gain by siding with the industrialists and against labor, which is of course what they did.
Bipartisan efforts are what makes Congress work.
It’s this loss that plagues Congress.
Bipartisanship is what was jettisoned by the republicans to ensure that they would always be able to blame democrats for the failure of the government.
Even during Obamacare, when they adopted a Republican plan, Romney had to distance himself from it. Despite all the efforts for Bipartisan outreach - for all the concessions, the republicans couldn’t stand with the dems.
The Dems must always be wrong.
Bipartisanship means you have to spend more effort to get more people on your team.
Partisanship means you just have to get on board with one party.
So how is bipartisanship the problem?
It’s this loss that plagues Congress.
Bipartisanship is what was jettisoned by the republicans to ensure that they would always be able to blame democrats for the failure of the government.
Even during Obamacare, when they adopted a Republican plan, Romney had to distance himself from it. Despite all the efforts for Bipartisan outreach - for all the concessions, the republicans couldn’t stand with the dems.
The Dems must always be wrong.
Bipartisanship means you have to spend more effort to get more people on your team.
Partisanship means you just have to get on board with one party.
So how is bipartisanship the problem?
Looking at this mess from far away in Switzerland.
I'm so glad we have a consensus democracy. We're a small country but I don't see any reason why a more moderate, consensus based system couldn't be adopted by larger ones. In fact I think this centralization of power around one person doesn't scale.
I'm also glad that we have the direct vote in order to reign in our government whenever they overreach or turn too far away from our interests. That seems much harder to implement in larger countries, but it's an excellent tool to course correct a government.
I'm so glad we have a consensus democracy. We're a small country but I don't see any reason why a more moderate, consensus based system couldn't be adopted by larger ones. In fact I think this centralization of power around one person doesn't scale.
I'm also glad that we have the direct vote in order to reign in our government whenever they overreach or turn too far away from our interests. That seems much harder to implement in larger countries, but it's an excellent tool to course correct a government.
Why so two-party system?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
> political systems with single-member districts and the plurality voting system, as in, for example, the United States, two main parties tend to emerge. In this case, votes for minor parties can potentially be regarded as splitting votes away from the most similar major party
If a third party grows it will either shrink again as voters realize they are splitting their vote against their biggest common opponent, or the third party replaces one of the two existing parties. Either way, you get two main parties.
> political systems with single-member districts and the plurality voting system, as in, for example, the United States, two main parties tend to emerge. In this case, votes for minor parties can potentially be regarded as splitting votes away from the most similar major party
If a third party grows it will either shrink again as voters realize they are splitting their vote against their biggest common opponent, or the third party replaces one of the two existing parties. Either way, you get two main parties.
I don't normally "this" a comment, but "this"!
The most effective single thing to promote a multiparty system is to switch to ranked-choice or approval voting (if staying with single-member districts) or to switch to multi-member districts with some kind of proportional representation. That would be where, say, everyone in Texas votes for their preferred party, and the 34 seats get allocated proportionally to party results.
Honestly, implementing Ranked Choice is the best compromise.
The most effective single thing to promote a multiparty system is to switch to ranked-choice or approval voting (if staying with single-member districts) or to switch to multi-member districts with some kind of proportional representation. That would be where, say, everyone in Texas votes for their preferred party, and the 34 seats get allocated proportionally to party results.
Honestly, implementing Ranked Choice is the best compromise.
* Meaningfully improves the ability of minor parties to succeed
* Removes the concept of "wasted vote" so that citizens can vote their conscience
* Electoral results are more informative of the positions of the electorate
* Candidates have to compete more on ideas and policies than attacking opponents
* Conceptually easier to understand than other systems
* Maintains single-member districts (I don't like this, but I think trying to change the House to multi-member districts is too radical for us)The big issue, fatal even, is that the parties that can enact this change, those currently in power, are those that stand to lose the most from it.
So we're stuck with this joke we call democratic elections. Also seen in the UK with its abysmal first-past-the-post system.
So we're stuck with this joke we call democratic elections. Also seen in the UK with its abysmal first-past-the-post system.
The UK isn't a two party system though. It has at least 5 parties in play right now (Lab, Con, Reform, LibDem, SNP). Reform is only small but is currently polling higher than any other parties, so their number of MPs would go up a lot if an election was held today.
FPTP isn't sufficient to get a two party system. The US has such a system because it combines FPTP with open primaries. In the UK the right is trying to rebuild a new party from scratch, because the Conservative party has no working mechanisms that would allow it to have its direction changed by its members. Whereas in the US open primaries give members a great deal of control, and that kills the incentive to create new parties. The current Republican administration is run by a group of former Democrats who came into the GOP from the outside - this isn't possible in the UK system.
FPTP isn't sufficient to get a two party system. The US has such a system because it combines FPTP with open primaries. In the UK the right is trying to rebuild a new party from scratch, because the Conservative party has no working mechanisms that would allow it to have its direction changed by its members. Whereas in the US open primaries give members a great deal of control, and that kills the incentive to create new parties. The current Republican administration is run by a group of former Democrats who came into the GOP from the outside - this isn't possible in the UK system.
Yes, which reveals how serious they really are about third parties as "spoilers". An alternative voting system could eliminate that as a possibility entirely.
> The most effective single thing to promote a multiparty system is to switch to ranked-choice or approval voting (if staying with single-member districts) or to switch to multi-member districts with some kind of proportional representation.
The single best is to switch to multimember proportional for the legislature (which can remain candidate centric using, say, 5 member districts and STV), and that gets even better (though procedurally more difficult to adopt in the US) if you were to switch the Presidential election from a single winner two-seat President and Vice President to ranked choice two-sequential winner system (e.g., IRV or Bucklin, but after you pick a winner, eliminate that candidate, and tally again without them for a second winner as VP) where each party is structurally incentivized to compete for both spots. These not only make more parties viable they also each offer more election-day choice among candidates of the same party, denying incumbents of favored parties an uncontested sinecure.
The single best is to switch to multimember proportional for the legislature (which can remain candidate centric using, say, 5 member districts and STV), and that gets even better (though procedurally more difficult to adopt in the US) if you were to switch the Presidential election from a single winner two-seat President and Vice President to ranked choice two-sequential winner system (e.g., IRV or Bucklin, but after you pick a winner, eliminate that candidate, and tally again without them for a second winner as VP) where each party is structurally incentivized to compete for both spots. These not only make more parties viable they also each offer more election-day choice among candidates of the same party, denying incumbents of favored parties an uncontested sinecure.
Where has the adoption of ranked choice with single member districts resulted in a switch from a two-party system to a multiparty one?
It hasn't happened anywhere in the US as far as I know, despite being adopted by various local governments.
Ranked choice's major benefit is that it reduces the effect of spoilers. Third parties are the spoilers.
It hasn't happened anywhere in the US as far as I know, despite being adopted by various local governments.
Ranked choice's major benefit is that it reduces the effect of spoilers. Third parties are the spoilers.
When the national elections are still two party local, and the two big parties have any interest in the local election, those two parties will win local as well because they have some much more mind share. Many people decide who to vote for in the national election and then vote the same party all down the ballot without knowing what any of the other players stand for, thus giving the major parties a big advantage when one of those down ballot races is a different system. If you are not the big party in those other systems you still have a harder time because people don't understand how the local system is different.
Again, I ask, where has this two-party to multiparty switch happened with single member elections?
Because I can't find an example in any country, yet it is appears to be taken as an article of faith that it will happen by proponents of ranked choice voting.
The evidence for switching from single member to multi-member elections is far more clear. Of course, you obviously can't have multi-member elections for President, the Senate because the Constitution staggered elections and courts have ruled against multi-member districts for the House in the past for violating the VRA.
Because I can't find an example in any country, yet it is appears to be taken as an article of faith that it will happen by proponents of ranked choice voting.
The evidence for switching from single member to multi-member elections is far more clear. Of course, you obviously can't have multi-member elections for President, the Senate because the Constitution staggered elections and courts have ruled against multi-member districts for the House in the past for violating the VRA.
I'm not aware of enough world politics to tell you if it has happened. I would not expect such a change to happen overnight, instead it would take 50-100 years for people to get used to the change and then change how they act. Thus a lack of any examples doesn't mean it won't happen. (it also doesn't mean it will - politics are always changing)
> implementing Ranked Choice is the best compromise.
Approval voting is the better compromise IMO. It has most of the same benefits, except that it's even easier to understand, and attacking opponents is even less valuable. You don't get as much information about opinions from the result, but you do still get more than the current system (assuming statistics are made available). You don't have to worry about people wasting their vote because they don't understand the new system, voting for only one candidate is a valid approval voting vote, it simply implies a higher threshold.
Approval voting is the better compromise IMO. It has most of the same benefits, except that it's even easier to understand, and attacking opponents is even less valuable. You don't get as much information about opinions from the result, but you do still get more than the current system (assuming statistics are made available). You don't have to worry about people wasting their vote because they don't understand the new system, voting for only one candidate is a valid approval voting vote, it simply implies a higher threshold.
approval voting gives you MORE information about opinions, even if this is counterintuitive.
this is because:
1. the IRV tabulation algorithm discards a lot of useful information. (there are better ways to tabulate ranked ballots.)
2. strategic exaggeration of rankings is more distortionary than with approval voting.
https://medium.com/@clayshentrup/expressiveness-6ef8c034bc65
this is because:
1. the IRV tabulation algorithm discards a lot of useful information. (there are better ways to tabulate ranked ballots.)
2. strategic exaggeration of rankings is more distortionary than with approval voting.
https://medium.com/@clayshentrup/expressiveness-6ef8c034bc65
Ranked Choice (ballots) meaning Ranked Pairs (decision process), of course. Instant Runoff Voting is still thoroughly an artifact of the two party system.
I want bipartisanship. Consensus and a willingness to concede are the only way to govern fairly. Anything else is just naked fiat, which is another word for authoritarianism.
Completely incapable of governing is quite some hyperbole. IRA Act, CHIPs Act that got a TSM fab up in record time on American soil, Operation Warp Speed.
This kind of rhetoric really just feeds the beast.
This kind of rhetoric really just feeds the beast.
The CHIPS and Science Act is a U.S. federal statute enacted by the 117th United States Congress and signed into law by President Joe Biden on August 9, 2022.
The only rebuttal I see in the media is that congress set these up to be “independent”. But our government doesn’t have independent branches. In fact that sounds a lot like “unelected and unaccountable”.
So which branches are these agencies under? Is it in the judicial, legislative, or executive - and if it’s in the executive why can’t the chief executive manage business?
On the other hand, one of the issues brought up in the Obama years was whether a president can choose not to enforce a law like immigration. If congres’s laws can be ignored than what power do they have?
Genuine question. Does anyone have a constitutional framing for the duties of the executive branch in prioritizing enforcement or implementation of law?
So which branches are these agencies under? Is it in the judicial, legislative, or executive - and if it’s in the executive why can’t the chief executive manage business?
On the other hand, one of the issues brought up in the Obama years was whether a president can choose not to enforce a law like immigration. If congres’s laws can be ignored than what power do they have?
Genuine question. Does anyone have a constitutional framing for the duties of the executive branch in prioritizing enforcement or implementation of law?
Congress makes lots of rules about how the executive can wield power:
* FOIA tells the executive branch when/how to share documents.
* APA tells executive agencies what they have to do to make a rule.
* Congress gives line item budgets, and the executive doesn't get to reassign funds.
* Executive agencies must submit to audits from GAO (within congress)
It's perfectly reasonable for congress to limit how executive agency heads can be hired/fired too. After all, it's agencies that congress enacted and gave power too, and for legitimiate reasons that congress has.
* FOIA tells the executive branch when/how to share documents.
* APA tells executive agencies what they have to do to make a rule.
* Congress gives line item budgets, and the executive doesn't get to reassign funds.
* Executive agencies must submit to audits from GAO (within congress)
It's perfectly reasonable for congress to limit how executive agency heads can be hired/fired too. After all, it's agencies that congress enacted and gave power too, and for legitimiate reasons that congress has.
> It's perfectly reasonable for congress to limit how executive agency heads can be hired/fired too.
In some limited employment law sense , maybe. The question is who gives these people orders? Who do they work for? And the answer can’t be themselves.
In some limited employment law sense , maybe. The question is who gives these people orders? Who do they work for? And the answer can’t be themselves.
Why is that the question? I think it's clear that some of them work for the president, and the president (perhaps filtered through cabinet members and others) tells them what to do. But that doesn't mean that Congress can't put limits on when and how the president can fire them.
That isn't necessarily the case for all officials. For example, I believe Congress can't prevent the president from firing a member of the cabinet. But that doesn't mean the president can do whatever he wants to anyone.
That isn't necessarily the case for all officials. For example, I believe Congress can't prevent the president from firing a member of the cabinet. But that doesn't mean the president can do whatever he wants to anyone.
It's akin to how the board of directors doesn't let the CEO fire a companies auditors.
There's no more FOIA - Musk had their entire office fired and disbanded.
There is no central FOIA office. Each agency has is responsible for their own FOIA requests. IF you are referring to this news story [1] That was just the FOIA office at OPM.
[1] https://www.commondreams.org/news/cnn-foia-office-of-personn...
[1] https://www.commondreams.org/news/cnn-foia-office-of-personn...
Yeah, don't be so hard on Musk and Trump. They're destroying oversight agency by agency, not all at once. Starting with the agency in charge of HR oversight.
They aren't 'independent' they are 'a mix between executive and legislative'. The Supreme Court decisions are Meyers v US and Hunters Executor v US. And I'm not a constitutional scholar but my reading of it is that the protections in question come from the legislative delegating some of their power to the executive, think legislative actions (researching laws, etc) but retaining their constitutional prerogative to protect them from executive control.
This is something that has existed for a very long time but has been changing lately and will almost certainly show up in the Supreme Court again.
This is something that has existed for a very long time but has been changing lately and will almost certainly show up in the Supreme Court again.
“ Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926), was a United States Supreme Court decision ruling that the President has the exclusive power to remove executive branch officials, and does not need the approval of the Senate or any other legislative body.”
Yes. Now look up Humphreys Executor which is mentioned in the next sentence after the sentence you quoted in Wikipedia.
It limits that power when it comes to the quasi-legislative agencies.
That was the unambiguous law of the land for nearly 100 years until the current court whittled down the exclusion in Seila in 2020.
It limits that power when it comes to the quasi-legislative agencies.
That was the unambiguous law of the land for nearly 100 years until the current court whittled down the exclusion in Seila in 2020.
If your question is whether the “independent” agencies are Constitutional, the answer is yes. Congress makes the laws and the laws can constrain the behavior of the President. If the law says the President cannot fire someone, or interfere in an agency’s work, then the President cannot.
So who are such agencies accountable to? Congress. Just like the president is accountable to Congress.
So who are such agencies accountable to? Congress. Just like the president is accountable to Congress.
This is just flatly incorrect. Humphrey's Executor (which may not be long for this world as precedent, anyway) lays out specific cases where "for cause" requirements on termination are Constitutional, but otherwise the President's power to dismiss subordinate officers of the executive branch is absolute.
The Court distinguished between executive officers and quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial officers. The Court held that the latter may be removed only with procedures consistent with statutory conditions enacted by Congress, but the former serve at the pleasure of the President and may be removed at his discretion. The Court ruled that the Federal Trade Commission was a quasi-legislative body because it adjudicated cases and promulgated rules. Thus, the President could not fire a member solely for political reasons. Therefore, Humphrey's firing was improper.
Sounds like what the parent was saying, so not flatly incorrect.
What the parent said:
“If the law says the President cannot fire someone, or interfere in an agency’s work, then the President cannot.”
This is, indeed, flatly incorrect. Congress cannot pass a law requiring that the Secretary of State or Defense or Treasury be fired only for cause. The SCOTUS case knocking it down would likely be 9-0.
“Congress writes the laws and can make them say whatever they want” totally ignores separation-of-powers concerns that the Constitution and its guardians in Article III courts take very seriously.
“If the law says the President cannot fire someone, or interfere in an agency’s work, then the President cannot.”
This is, indeed, flatly incorrect. Congress cannot pass a law requiring that the Secretary of State or Defense or Treasury be fired only for cause. The SCOTUS case knocking it down would likely be 9-0.
“Congress writes the laws and can make them say whatever they want” totally ignores separation-of-powers concerns that the Constitution and its guardians in Article III courts take very seriously.
[deleted]
> Congress cannot pass a law requiring that the Secretary of State or Defense or Treasury be fired only for cause. The SCOTUS case knocking it down would likely be 9-0.
No one is saying Congress can restrict the President from firing political appointees or his Cabinet.
We're talking about the quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial agencies here. In the case you cite, Humphrey was on the FTC, and Roosevelt tried to fire him. The Court said the President couldn't him because Congress wrote it in the law. That's exactly what the other poster was saying, so how are they flatly incorrect?
No one is saying Congress can restrict the President from firing political appointees or his Cabinet.
We're talking about the quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial agencies here. In the case you cite, Humphrey was on the FTC, and Roosevelt tried to fire him. The Court said the President couldn't him because Congress wrote it in the law. That's exactly what the other poster was saying, so how are they flatly incorrect?
The quote I was referring to as “flatly wrong” is repeated above. Nowhere there or in the original post are the phrases “quasi-legislative” or “quasi-judicial”. Instead a much more general claim is made that the Congress’ power to constrain acts of the Executive is unlimited because they write the laws. That’s not at all how our system works.
The oral arguments in Selia Law v. CFPB may be enlightening here:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/19-7
The oral arguments in Selia Law v. CFPB may be enlightening here:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/19-7
Just stop. The sentence before the one you said is flatly wrong mentions “independent agencies” — those are the “quasi-legislative” agencies like the FTC.
The other poster was right and you posted case law proving their point.
The other poster was right and you posted case law proving their point.
You’re begging the question: What makes an agency “independent”? The answer given by the original poster was “because Congress says so, and they can”. That is, again, flatly wrong.
Congress can’t reorganize the Treasury as an independent agency. Why not? Making the sole director of the CFPB dismissible only for cause was ruled unconstitutional. Why?
Taking the claim made by the original poster as accurate would lead you to get both of these important questions wrong.
Congress can’t reorganize the Treasury as an independent agency. Why not? Making the sole director of the CFPB dismissible only for cause was ruled unconstitutional. Why?
Taking the claim made by the original poster as accurate would lead you to get both of these important questions wrong.
The case you cited gives us the answer:
The Court ruled that the Federal Trade Commission was a quasi-legislative body because it adjudicated cases and promulgated rules.Your comment is way too vague to be declaring anything as flat out wrong. At any rate, federal employees have numerous protections from being fired arbitrarily as laid out by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, a law passed precisely to limit arbitrary firing of federal employees, especially for politically motivated reasons.
So your understanding is that these agencies are part of the legislative branch and the senate/house would have the power to do this?
If it’s that clear will it be easy to take this to the Supreme Court?
If it’s that clear will it be easy to take this to the Supreme Court?
They are part of the executive branch, but the law governs and constrains the behavior of the executive in managing them.
You can’t even say that Congress is solely the source of those constraints since the laws creating and governing these agencies were signed by… the president!
Most of these agencies have already been challenged in court and the Constitutionality of their structure and governance affirmed.
You can’t even say that Congress is solely the source of those constraints since the laws creating and governing these agencies were signed by… the president!
Most of these agencies have already been challenged in court and the Constitutionality of their structure and governance affirmed.
I agree. Taking trump to court for not carrying out existing law is a winning case. Saying he can’t replace X person because they are in an independent branch is not going to hold up. And I suspect they know that and want the court to rule on it.
Unless someone can make an argument that they actually report to congress.
Unless someone can make an argument that they actually report to congress.
Part of the executive power in the US is that the president influences the judicial branch, and ultimately the judicial branch is going to determine who gets to do what. They do this in many ways, a big one being they can prioritize any case they want, and simply decline to even hear certain ones. So if the president wants to do something, congress pushes back and challenges it and it goes to court, the president can effectively “get away with it” as long as the judiciary is fine with it
> Part of the executive power in the US is that the president influences the judicial branch
How? Judicial branch is independent.
How? Judicial branch is independent.
The president influences the judicial branch by appointing its members. There are now lots of federal judges, and several Supreme Court justices, appointed by Trump during his first term, who seem happy to allow Trump to do whatever he wants to do.
Certainly that's not universal. Some Trump appointees will likely balk when Trump goes too far in their estimation. But this is what happens when the GOP politicizes their judicial appointments.
Certainly that's not universal. Some Trump appointees will likely balk when Trump goes too far in their estimation. But this is what happens when the GOP politicizes their judicial appointments.
Influence is not control?
There is no influence. You are just making things up now. Once selected by the President, the judges are independent.
That’s my point. The influence done through the appointments. Influence in the branch, not in the individuals
Sure, in an ideal world. These folks all attend the same parties, and by many accounts seemingly think the same thoughts, which is pretty wild!
All three branches are now run by ideologues. There is no independent thought. There may be independence on paper, and on that we would agree. But the situation here in reality isn’t really related to what’s on paper. In fact these folks mean to ignore all the current laws and just do whatever the fuck they want and I’m not making that up. I’m reporting what I see.
All three branches are now run by ideologues. There is no independent thought. There may be independence on paper, and on that we would agree. But the situation here in reality isn’t really related to what’s on paper. In fact these folks mean to ignore all the current laws and just do whatever the fuck they want and I’m not making that up. I’m reporting what I see.
They don't have to be part of any branch. The usual branches are descriptive concepts. (Or they can be part of the executive branch yet still not be part of the "unitary executive" part. The law allows for any kind of exemptions and special-casing.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory
grandempire(2)
Congress can only make laws if they don’t infringe on the constitution. If they want laws that aren’t constitutional, they have to make constitutional amendments, which is probably never going to happen ever again because of how dysfunctional they are and have been for decades.
The president has a lot of constitutional protection to run the executive branch, though obviously congress has ways to pass laws and influence that, too.
The president isn’t accountable to congress but there are checks and balances both ways
The president has a lot of constitutional protection to run the executive branch, though obviously congress has ways to pass laws and influence that, too.
The president isn’t accountable to congress but there are checks and balances both ways
In a democracy the three branches are independent. Democracy is not just 'you get to elect the guy on top', it also attempts to preserve the rights of the population. If the population does not have rights, democracy soon becomes very fake. E.g., I don't like this or that party so I throw anyone in jail during election day if I know that they would vote for the wrong party. The general principle is that if a person/organization has too much power they will generally find a way to abuse it. The famous split-up in three branches is employed to a greater or lesser extend in all countries where the rights of the population are respected.
Not unaccountable, just requiring the cooperation of multiple branches to remove.
Cooperation which has been deemed too transparent, too vulnerable to actually caring about what is being destroyed.
Cooperation which has been deemed too transparent, too vulnerable to actually caring about what is being destroyed.
What other constitutional procedures require cooperation between branches to make a decision?
The president signs laws, for example...... This isn't hard.
Im not being facetious. That’s a good example. So in that case the president has a final yes/no, but no authority to rewrite.
So maybe congress has a kind of veto power here?
So maybe congress has a kind of veto power here?
Congress has lots of power, it's a question of whether they do anything. Currently the Republicans are uniformity falling in line with the authoritarian executive orders, even those that abrogate well established congressional powers.
Remember we are still in the first 100 days. Congress typically falls in line for the first few months (not always 100 days, but it is a good round number). As the term goes on though congress tends to start looking to the next election and they start to opposed unpopular things because they will lose in 2 years. Trump is risking a democrat super majority in the house in 2 years if he is too unpopular, and 20 republicans are up for election in the senate, if even half of them turn that would be a majority for the democrats and a shot that the other republican senators (who want to win election in 2-4 more years) will pay attention to.
But we need to get through the first few months before any of this will play out. And after that there is still a long time before the 2026 elections.
But we need to get through the first few months before any of this will play out. And after that there is still a long time before the 2026 elections.
I think this is a good point. I'm not convinced that we can take all that much for granted during this presidential term. Trump is all about violating norms, and now he has Musk flipping votes in Congress by threatening to fund primary challengers.
But the cynic in my knows that a big chunk of a legislator's job is figuring out how to get re-elected next term. If (when) Trump does things unpopular with regular Republicans, and legislators are seen to be doing nothing to help their constituents, they'll start to worry they won't get re-elected.
It'll be the same thing that's happened with Democrats: Republican voter turnout will suffer because the candidates in front of them aren't doing anything useful for them.
But the cynic in my knows that a big chunk of a legislator's job is figuring out how to get re-elected next term. If (when) Trump does things unpopular with regular Republicans, and legislators are seen to be doing nothing to help their constituents, they'll start to worry they won't get re-elected.
It'll be the same thing that's happened with Democrats: Republican voter turnout will suffer because the candidates in front of them aren't doing anything useful for them.
What on earth gave you the idea this administration will be anything like a previous one? I don’t think we can assume the rules will just stay the same.
So long as there are elections in 2026 the looming election will have an effect. I doubt Trump can get away with trying to stop elections or even manipulating them (much - there is always manipulation). As such congress will soon start behaving like elections matter and they might not be elected if they are unpopular.
It's not a final yes/no. A two-thirds majority in both chambers can overrule the presidential veto. For example:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55510151
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55510151
True, but even in either party's most wildest predictions, a supermajority in the House or Senate is vanishingly unlikely.
I guess there's a chance Trump will do something so horribly unpopular that there will be extreme bipartisan support for limiting his power in some ways. But I'm not sure I'd rely on that either.
I guess there's a chance Trump will do something so horribly unpopular that there will be extreme bipartisan support for limiting his power in some ways. But I'm not sure I'd rely on that either.
yes.
It’s a false narrative that Obama was soft on immigration and even earned the nickname “deporter in chief”.
In some ways he was even harder than Bush during the post 9/11 response.
www.migrationpolicy.org/article/obama-record-deportations-deporter-chief-or-not
It’s astounding the regularity over the last 100 years that conservatives have used immigration narratives to fire up their base regardless of what statistical data shows.
In some ways he was even harder than Bush during the post 9/11 response.
www.migrationpolicy.org/article/obama-record-deportations-deporter-chief-or-not
It’s astounding the regularity over the last 100 years that conservatives have used immigration narratives to fire up their base regardless of what statistical data shows.
Obama left office more than a decade ago.
Perhaps you should view this through the lens of the Biden administration.
It's astounding the regularity that people bring Obama when they want to avoid discussing reality.
Perhaps you should view this through the lens of the Biden administration.
It's astounding the regularity that people bring Obama when they want to avoid discussing reality.
The comment you're responding to mentioned Obama because of the comment they were responding to brought it up.
Here's a link for some numbers that include Biden: https://www.newsweek.com/immigrant-deportations-removals-tru...
tl;dr: Biden seems to have deported more than any other president
Here's a link for some numbers that include Biden: https://www.newsweek.com/immigrant-deportations-removals-tru...
tl;dr: Biden seems to have deported more than any other president
It's complex.
Obama may have deported lots of people, but Trump famously used the same institutions to detain and torture minors indefinitely... Which of those is "harder" against immigration?
It's the same issue that is happening now. Biden deported a lot more people, but he focused on people entering the US or caught doing something. Trump is deporting a low fewer people, but he randomly taking people from their homes, workplaces and schools. Which one do you think appears "harder" on TV?
Obama may have deported lots of people, but Trump famously used the same institutions to detain and torture minors indefinitely... Which of those is "harder" against immigration?
It's the same issue that is happening now. Biden deported a lot more people, but he focused on people entering the US or caught doing something. Trump is deporting a low fewer people, but he randomly taking people from their homes, workplaces and schools. Which one do you think appears "harder" on TV?
So in other words his supporters are a bunch of sadistic idiots who would rather see kindergartners tortured than a cartel member deported into custody because it means a hard tough man is in charge!
Hum...
Maybe it's more a case of rampant mathematical illiteracy all over the press and people paying more attention to extraordinary events. I really don't know.
Maybe it's more a case of rampant mathematical illiteracy all over the press and people paying more attention to extraordinary events. I really don't know.
> Trump famously used the same institutions to detain and torture minors indefinitely
Are you talking about the "cages" that were built under Obama and continued under every president thereafter, including Biden? Or what?
Are you talking about the "cages" that were built under Obama and continued under every president thereafter, including Biden? Or what?
I'm talking about the policy of deporting the parents and keeping children detained waiting for the result of "refugee" requests that were never even filled. And no, Biden stopped that really quickly.
The "cages" are the same whether you keep people there for a couple of days waiting for a flight back into their country or for months for no good reason.
The "cages" are the same whether you keep people there for a couple of days waiting for a flight back into their country or for months for no good reason.
The Constitution has the "Due Care Clause."
The Administration is required to follow the law and to implement it with due care as the legislation intended.
The Legislature can impeach the Administration, it can hold it's officers in contempt, and it can pass laws constraining the Administration.
It's a simple problem: NO ONE IS DOING THEIR JOB. This is because they can get away with it and you don't actually have the power to vote them out. The media is part of the problem and is no longer serving the interests of the citizens. The monopolized corporations ensure you cannot use the Internet to meaningfully solve this problem. Look at this garbage thread. Look at all these garbage threads on here every time some political problem comes up. It's all compromised claptrap designed to appeal to corporate American but in no way to connect and govern in a modern fashion with each other.
Look at turn out on voting day when a presidential election is not slated. It's typically less than 25% of the voting age population that turns out. If you sit and think about this for one minute you will see why we are where we are.
The Administration is required to follow the law and to implement it with due care as the legislation intended.
The Legislature can impeach the Administration, it can hold it's officers in contempt, and it can pass laws constraining the Administration.
It's a simple problem: NO ONE IS DOING THEIR JOB. This is because they can get away with it and you don't actually have the power to vote them out. The media is part of the problem and is no longer serving the interests of the citizens. The monopolized corporations ensure you cannot use the Internet to meaningfully solve this problem. Look at this garbage thread. Look at all these garbage threads on here every time some political problem comes up. It's all compromised claptrap designed to appeal to corporate American but in no way to connect and govern in a modern fashion with each other.
Look at turn out on voting day when a presidential election is not slated. It's typically less than 25% of the voting age population that turns out. If you sit and think about this for one minute you will see why we are where we are.
> The Legislature can impeach the Administration
The problem here is that if you impeach Trump, then you get Vance, who will do the same stuff Trump is doing. You impeach Vance, and you get Johnson, who will do the same stuff Trump is doing. And so on, down the line. Eventually you run out of people in the presidential line of succession, and then you have a real problem. I suppose eventually you get to the point where you have a president who doesn't feel like getting impeached? But by then the damage to the institution has been done.
> it can hold it's officers in contempt
Who is going to enforce any orders (fines, imprisonment) around those contempt rulings? Congress and federal courts don't really have much law enforcement personnel to speak of. Trump controls federal law enforcement, and he can instruct them to ignore contempt rulings.
I guess the House (for example) has the Sergeant at Arms, but their law enforcement staff is limited, and I don't think they're going to want to get into a conflict with, say, the Secret Service, if they go to arrest a cabinet member, but Trump says no.
> and it can pass laws constraining the Administration.
There are already laws constraining the administration, and Trump and Musk are running roughshod over them. Why would they obey new laws they don't like?
The problem here is that if you impeach Trump, then you get Vance, who will do the same stuff Trump is doing. You impeach Vance, and you get Johnson, who will do the same stuff Trump is doing. And so on, down the line. Eventually you run out of people in the presidential line of succession, and then you have a real problem. I suppose eventually you get to the point where you have a president who doesn't feel like getting impeached? But by then the damage to the institution has been done.
> it can hold it's officers in contempt
Who is going to enforce any orders (fines, imprisonment) around those contempt rulings? Congress and federal courts don't really have much law enforcement personnel to speak of. Trump controls federal law enforcement, and he can instruct them to ignore contempt rulings.
I guess the House (for example) has the Sergeant at Arms, but their law enforcement staff is limited, and I don't think they're going to want to get into a conflict with, say, the Secret Service, if they go to arrest a cabinet member, but Trump says no.
> and it can pass laws constraining the Administration.
There are already laws constraining the administration, and Trump and Musk are running roughshod over them. Why would they obey new laws they don't like?
There’s prosecutorial discretion. If Congress doesn’t like it, impeachment is the remedy.
I think you’re right… impeachment is the main mechanism by which they can complain that he’s not enforcing the law. I’m struggling to think of what else they can do.
> But our government doesn’t have independent branches.
In theory it does, that is the whole idea and genius of the constitution.
In fact at the moment it does not, because Trump has so captured the Republican party that the legislature has almost no power to stand up to him. The Supreme Court has a long history of judges aligning with the political party that seated them, and Trump put 3 of them into their seat.
In theory it does, that is the whole idea and genius of the constitution.
In fact at the moment it does not, because Trump has so captured the Republican party that the legislature has almost no power to stand up to him. The Supreme Court has a long history of judges aligning with the political party that seated them, and Trump put 3 of them into their seat.
>But our government doesn’t have independent branches.
Yes, it does, by the nature of them existing and Congress establishing them. Show me where in the Constitution that they can't do that.
Yes, it does, by the nature of them existing and Congress establishing them. Show me where in the Constitution that they can't do that.
Powers are enumerated in the constitution. So it’s not a question of what the constitution says they can’t do.
It would be strange if congress can designate untouchable officials. Why don’t they just grant themselves office for life?
It would be strange if congress can designate untouchable officials. Why don’t they just grant themselves office for life?
>To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
So yes, Congress has wide leeway to create agencies to administer particular executions of laws passed by Congress and signed by the President.
Furthermore, we don't have untouchable officials. What does that hypothetical have to do with anything?
The heads of these agencies that Trump is removing are protected from being fired immediately, fired without Congressional notification, and from being fired without cause.
Rank-and-file civil servants are protected from being fired unrelated to performance precisely so we don't revert to the patronage systems of the 1800s.
So yes, Congress has wide leeway to create agencies to administer particular executions of laws passed by Congress and signed by the President.
Furthermore, we don't have untouchable officials. What does that hypothetical have to do with anything?
The heads of these agencies that Trump is removing are protected from being fired immediately, fired without Congressional notification, and from being fired without cause.
Rank-and-file civil servants are protected from being fired unrelated to performance precisely so we don't revert to the patronage systems of the 1800s.
> Rank-and-file civil servants are protected from being fired
That cannot be true. They do not get a lifetime claim to the treasury which is not revocable by elected officials.
The members of the executive branch work for the chief executive.
That cannot be true. They do not get a lifetime claim to the treasury which is not revocable by elected officials.
The members of the executive branch work for the chief executive.
No one says they get a lifetime claim, just that some cannot be legally fired without cause. Not sure why you are going to the extreme of "untouchable officials" and "lifetime claim" when no one has suggested that's the case.
If the law is that that an official cannot be fired without cause, then that's that, if there's no cause. Maybe they have a term of employment in that position, and when it ends, they leave. Maybe Congress can fire them via some other appropriate mechanism. But if the law says the president cannot fire them without cause, then that's just not a power the president has.
If the law is that that an official cannot be fired without cause, then that's that, if there's no cause. Maybe they have a term of employment in that position, and when it ends, they leave. Maybe Congress can fire them via some other appropriate mechanism. But if the law says the president cannot fire them without cause, then that's just not a power the president has.
Well, it is true that civil servants have those protections to some extent. You ignore the benefits. Look up Tammany hall and patronage.
How many executive functions can they seize?
This is obviously alarming, and if used to disregard the Judiciary's interpretation of law, unconstitutional. But I'm puzzled by the exemption of the Federal Reserve and FOMC. He's previously beefed with them, and would presumably find the additional leverage useful. Why explicitly exclude them?
The way the US political system works is that the legislative passes laws, the executive enforces laws, and the judicial interprets laws and ensures the constitutionality/legality of it all. This is relevant because in this scenario each body plays a critical role, but they 'beat' each other in different ways, almost like a game of rock, paper, scissors. The executive beats the legislative by vetoing laws, the judicial beats the executive by blocking/halting orders/enforcements of laws, and the legislative can beat the judiciary by passing new laws or even changing the constitution (though there you'd also need the states' approval).
This simplifies some things (like the fact that congress can beat the executive by overriding a veto), but I think generally captures the essence of the system. And a key point here is that judicial beats executive. The executive can interpret a law however they want, but if the judiciary disagrees then the judiciary wins. So nothing needs to be "used" to disregard the judiciary's interpretation of laws - it simply doesn't matter what the executive's interpretation of a law - that's the role of the judiciary.
The reason for this law is simply to bring the various agencies under executive authority in line. Instead of each individual organization interpreting the law (generally around the limits of their powers) at their own discretion, those interpretations will now need to pass through the attorney general.
This simplifies some things (like the fact that congress can beat the executive by overriding a veto), but I think generally captures the essence of the system. And a key point here is that judicial beats executive. The executive can interpret a law however they want, but if the judiciary disagrees then the judiciary wins. So nothing needs to be "used" to disregard the judiciary's interpretation of laws - it simply doesn't matter what the executive's interpretation of a law - that's the role of the judiciary.
The reason for this law is simply to bring the various agencies under executive authority in line. Instead of each individual organization interpreting the law (generally around the limits of their powers) at their own discretion, those interpretations will now need to pass through the attorney general.
> The reason for this law is simply to bring the various agencies under executive authority in line.
Just to be very clear, since it actually matters... this is an executive order, not a law. No one voted on it, it was just declared to be true.
Just to be very clear, since it actually matters... this is an executive order, not a law. No one voted on it, it was just declared to be true.
> So nothing needs to be "used" to disregard the judiciary's interpretation of laws - it simply doesn't matter what the executive's interpretation of a law - that's the role of the judiciary.
Which is important considering that Chevron doesn't exist anymore, where the judiciary found itself out of their water, so to speak, about how to implement the law (note I say implement here, meaning that what the law says, the org does, but the details or ambiguous terms are up to the org). So, this actually re-implements Chevron in a forceful way, because it says that the judiciary, which tasked again with overseeing how laws are implemented by the executive whenever they are ambiguous.
Which is important considering that Chevron doesn't exist anymore, where the judiciary found itself out of their water, so to speak, about how to implement the law (note I say implement here, meaning that what the law says, the org does, but the details or ambiguous terms are up to the org). So, this actually re-implements Chevron in a forceful way, because it says that the judiciary, which tasked again with overseeing how laws are implemented by the executive whenever they are ambiguous.
Because including them would cause an immediate worldwide economic crisis as everyone pulls their money from US bonds.
Why aren't they pre-emptively doing that?
Because Treasuries are the foundation of the global financial system, and there's basically nothing that could replace them completely.
It seems like it would be a good idea to move the global financial system off the shaky ground before it opens up into a bottomless sinkhole, but what do I know about global finances?
Where do you put all the money? If there was a deep and liquid euro market, or if China removed capital controls then maybe.
The question doesn't make sense. Money can't be "put" in places - it always circulates.
OK, so I have $1 trillion in Treasuries, and I sell them. What do I do with the cash? Presumably I'd like other government debt. The trouble is that I need to put this into another market, so what do I choose? The total euro government bond market is 8 trillion euros, so I'm probably gonna move that market in a way that's not good for me. That's the point I'm trying to (badly, apparently) make.
Am I missing something here?
Am I missing something here?
The act of selling them distributes money from someone else to you.
I recommend productive investments. Whatever the other person who had the money was doing. Growing corn, for example, or making cars.
I recommend productive investments. Whatever the other person who had the money was doing. Growing corn, for example, or making cars.
I'll be sure to tell most pension funds and insurance companies that they should change their investment strategies, thanks!
He’s scared of them.
If he were to mess with the Fed it would impact Wall Street, particularly by making the market indices go down.
For whatever reason he cares about that in ways he doesn’t care about his approval ratings or the historical norms of the office. See how fast he reached a deal on tariffs earlier in the month when the markets reacted to them? Since then they’ve been slowly leading tariffs to get the message out so when the tariffs come the market will have priced it in.
He’ll get to the Fed. But it won’t be overnight. The administration will start messaging it and choreographing the change long enough before so it won’t spook Wall Street.
If he were to mess with the Fed it would impact Wall Street, particularly by making the market indices go down.
For whatever reason he cares about that in ways he doesn’t care about his approval ratings or the historical norms of the office. See how fast he reached a deal on tariffs earlier in the month when the markets reacted to them? Since then they’ve been slowly leading tariffs to get the message out so when the tariffs come the market will have priced it in.
He’ll get to the Fed. But it won’t be overnight. The administration will start messaging it and choreographing the change long enough before so it won’t spook Wall Street.
This is the key, there is a reason why the Fed Chairman doesn't ad-lib any of their public speeches. They read a carefully prepared statement and that's it.
Just a small wink, nod or a pause somewhere might cause panic on Wall Street.
Just a small wink, nod or a pause somewhere might cause panic on Wall Street.
His project2025 handlers (lets be clear hes not that smart) have calculated exactly how much opposition each outrageous thing can stand, beyond which there would be too much coordinated pushback. So its all about divide everybody against their own little thing to try and get as much fuckery through as possible
His approval rating is quite high considering the circumstances. Will take months to really understand, but at least half of America abhors the federal government.
The only president with approval ratings lower than his current rating, this early in their presidency, was his own first term:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/116677/presidential-approval-ra...
And its dropping from the low point it started at https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/dona...
I don't know what "considering the circumstances" are but his approval ratings are historically abysmal, not quite high.
And its dropping from the low point it started at https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/dona...
I don't know what "considering the circumstances" are but his approval ratings are historically abysmal, not quite high.
Can you imagine if the media were actually reporting on what's happening honestly, especially Fox News?
The new Commerce secretary controls massive amounts of Tether.
Elon Musk’s entire net worth is tied up in stocks.
If Tesla crashed, so would Elon’s power.
If Tesla crashed, so would Elon’s power.
You've got me hoping for a massive market correction now.
March 18. A correction, however, is not the proper word.
March 18 :)
I know it sucks, but ELon also has SpaceX, Twitter, xAI and oddballs like neurolink and boring company that would still keep him outrageously wealthy if Tesla collapses.
Also Tesla won't collapse because it's investors are the most brain damaged investors, and frankly their self-fulfilling prophecy has kept them repeatedly buying any dip back up. It's been extremely profitable to be a mindless Tesla investor.
Also Tesla won't collapse because it's investors are the most brain damaged investors, and frankly their self-fulfilling prophecy has kept them repeatedly buying any dip back up. It's been extremely profitable to be a mindless Tesla investor.
I'd really expect that he is actually at a loss on all of those except for SpaceX which has a clear path towards being cash flow positive if it isn't already
You don't have to make money to be worth an astronomical amount. HN should know this better than anywhere.
I hate "fictitious" valuations as much as the next guy, but at the end of the day it's what people are willing to pay for equity that determines value, not what it's books look like.
I hate "fictitious" valuations as much as the next guy, but at the end of the day it's what people are willing to pay for equity that determines value, not what it's books look like.
Why does it suck that he has given humanity all those things?
Why do you attribute all those things to Elon? Didn’t he buy into all of his companies?
What a weird way to say that. He “gave” us spacex or Tesla.
What a weird way to say that. He “gave” us spacex or Tesla.
> Didn’t he buy into all of his companies?
No, he founded them.
Tesla technically existed on paper before Musk, but they didn’t even have a working prototype, and their facility was a home garage. In all practical terms he founded Tesla as well.
Twitter he bought obviously, which is why I didn’t mention it.
No, he founded them.
Tesla technically existed on paper before Musk, but they didn’t even have a working prototype, and their facility was a home garage. In all practical terms he founded Tesla as well.
Twitter he bought obviously, which is why I didn’t mention it.
He didn’t found Tesla, The Boring Company or Twitter and got ousted from PayPal.
… also I was looking at your comments, your rate of Elon glaze per min is really impressive.
… also I was looking at your comments, your rate of Elon glaze per min is really impressive.
He did found Tesla, like I mentioned, and I didn’t mention the other two companies.
You seem to be acting in bad faith here.
You seem to be acting in bad faith here.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-wasnt-original-foun...
https://www.theverge.com/23815634/tesla-elon-musk-origin-fou...
"No, Elon Musk did not found Tesla; the company was originally founded by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning in 2003. Musk became involved later as an investor and eventually took on leadership roles, including CEO, after a legal battle over the title of founder."
https://www.theverge.com/23815634/tesla-elon-musk-origin-fou...
"No, Elon Musk did not found Tesla; the company was originally founded by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning in 2003. Musk became involved later as an investor and eventually took on leadership roles, including CEO, after a legal battle over the title of founder."
lol
>No, he founded them.
That is a complete and utter lie. Even Hannity made this obvious in his interview yesterday and the look on Elon’s face was priceless.
That is a complete and utter lie. Even Hannity made this obvious in his interview yesterday and the look on Elon’s face was priceless.
He hasn't "given" society anything, we pay these companies for their services (often with taxpayer dollars!)
It doesn't suck that SpaceX or Tesla exists. It sucks that the person who has profited most from those entities is using their power to destroy government agencies that oversee his companies, and more broadly, to constantly lie and try to destroy the federal government.
It doesn't suck that SpaceX or Tesla exists. It sucks that the person who has profited most from those entities is using their power to destroy government agencies that oversee his companies, and more broadly, to constantly lie and try to destroy the federal government.
> He hasn't "given" society anything, we pay these companies for their services
He’s given society new products and services that didn’t exist before, the option to purchase from those companies, and the tax revenue from those companies (to the tune of hundreds of billions)
He’s given society new products and services that didn’t exist before, the option to purchase from those companies, and the tax revenue from those companies (to the tune of hundreds of billions)
Because his current actions appear consistent with attempting to perform a coup
scarab92(1)
They're not fully exempted, the order does apply to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in connection with its conduct and authorities directly related to its supervision and regulation of financial institutions.
In other words, when it comes to banking regulation, the President has the final say.
In other words, when it comes to banking regulation, the President has the final say.
The Fed is statutorily independent, and organized in a manner that the current Court has validated (unlike the CFPB). Just like Trump can't assert legislative superiority over Congress, he cannot unilaterally compromise the independence of the Fed.
I agree with Kasey, too, but I think the exception here is mostly legalese.
I agree with Kasey, too, but I think the exception here is mostly legalese.
It seems to me that the operative line:
> The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch.
conveys respect to the judiciary branch, and states that this only applies to situations where the executive branch is interpreting laws in isolation during their enforcement of them (which happens quite often).
However, following that line:
> No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law, including but not limited to the issuance of regulations, guidance, and positions advanced in litigation, unless authorized to do so by the President or in writing by the Attorney General.
Feels weirder, because it implies that when executive branch employees find themselves between a rock and a hard place on when a law is interpreted differently between the President and Judicial branches they must follow the Presidential interpretation; or they'll presumably be fired.
The way I see it: This isn't a broad departure from the behavior of the system two weeks ago. The office of the President, especially under Trump, has regularly taken the action of replacing employees who are unaligned with the President's agenda. When the rubber hits the road and we get to a material matter that the President and the Judicial branch disagree on, what it might come down to is: the Judicial branch can bring a suit against the employees to follow their interpretation, but the President could fire them if they do, and the President could pardon them if they instead follow the Presidential way. That's, essentially, the same situation the American system has been in for hundreds of years; the only difference right now is that we have a President who might actually do that.
Which draws back to something I've said a few times: Presidents from both parties, over the past 50 years, but especially Bush and Obama, have been relentless in interpreting the law in a direction which centralizes power into the Executive. The "normalcy" of the office until Trump was never enforced through legality; it was only decorum. It was only a matter of time before someone rejected this decorum, born out of congressional deadlock and the dire state of many Americans' wellbeing, to make the government and executive branch actually do something about it.
This isn't the first time America has had to face this question; not even close. Trump isn't exposing new weaknesses in our system; the weaknesses have always been there. Worcester v. Georgia (1832) is a great example. It ended with the President saying F.U. to the Supreme Court, refusing to enforce one of their interpretations, and, well, the Trail of Tears happened.
"Weakness", however, is an interesting term to deploy for this; it implies that the default state of the American system is that you need supermajority alignment for the government to accomplish anything, and if actors in the system find a legal way around that requirement, its a "weakness". Phrased more simply: Strength is inaction, Weakness is action. Of course, many Americans would disagree with any assertion that this is desirable, especially in the unstable geopolitical and economic situation we're in. Trump was elected, by majority electoral and popular vote, to take action; most Americans would not call the cracks he is cleaving open to accomplish his agenda a "weakness" of the system.
> The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch.
conveys respect to the judiciary branch, and states that this only applies to situations where the executive branch is interpreting laws in isolation during their enforcement of them (which happens quite often).
However, following that line:
> No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law, including but not limited to the issuance of regulations, guidance, and positions advanced in litigation, unless authorized to do so by the President or in writing by the Attorney General.
Feels weirder, because it implies that when executive branch employees find themselves between a rock and a hard place on when a law is interpreted differently between the President and Judicial branches they must follow the Presidential interpretation; or they'll presumably be fired.
The way I see it: This isn't a broad departure from the behavior of the system two weeks ago. The office of the President, especially under Trump, has regularly taken the action of replacing employees who are unaligned with the President's agenda. When the rubber hits the road and we get to a material matter that the President and the Judicial branch disagree on, what it might come down to is: the Judicial branch can bring a suit against the employees to follow their interpretation, but the President could fire them if they do, and the President could pardon them if they instead follow the Presidential way. That's, essentially, the same situation the American system has been in for hundreds of years; the only difference right now is that we have a President who might actually do that.
Which draws back to something I've said a few times: Presidents from both parties, over the past 50 years, but especially Bush and Obama, have been relentless in interpreting the law in a direction which centralizes power into the Executive. The "normalcy" of the office until Trump was never enforced through legality; it was only decorum. It was only a matter of time before someone rejected this decorum, born out of congressional deadlock and the dire state of many Americans' wellbeing, to make the government and executive branch actually do something about it.
This isn't the first time America has had to face this question; not even close. Trump isn't exposing new weaknesses in our system; the weaknesses have always been there. Worcester v. Georgia (1832) is a great example. It ended with the President saying F.U. to the Supreme Court, refusing to enforce one of their interpretations, and, well, the Trail of Tears happened.
"Weakness", however, is an interesting term to deploy for this; it implies that the default state of the American system is that you need supermajority alignment for the government to accomplish anything, and if actors in the system find a legal way around that requirement, its a "weakness". Phrased more simply: Strength is inaction, Weakness is action. Of course, many Americans would disagree with any assertion that this is desirable, especially in the unstable geopolitical and economic situation we're in. Trump was elected, by majority electoral and popular vote, to take action; most Americans would not call the cracks he is cleaving open to accomplish his agenda a "weakness" of the system.
The only reason supermajority is required in the current Senate is because a Senator can hold a "pocket filibuster" which in practice gives any single Senator the power to veto any legislation at any time for any reason for as long as they are in the senate. Were they to change their procedure and require Senators to actually speak in order to exercise a filibuster you would see this change pretty quickly. Strom Thurmond spoke for days to filibuster the civil rights laws, and he eventually had to stop because he got tired. He had aides holding buckets under the podium for him to relieve himself at times.
I mean, yes, technically it's "not new" for the President and Judiciary to disagree at this level. But doing so results in events like the Trail of Tears, which is pretty bad.
People are alarmed and concerned because they know it's not new. It's not difficult to find horrors in American history. Decorum and norms exist for the purpose of attempting to smooth over these stress points and make a safer power structure that hopefully prevents tragedies like this. The relative peace and safety we've enjoyed for the half century or so has been largely based on a modern era of good feelings and respectful norms.
When those norms go away and the authoritarian president dares the court to enforce the laws he breaks, people, rightly, get scared. The courts don't control the army, he does. I hope the generals remeber their oath, but oh yeah, he's been replacing them with loyalists too.
We know it isn't new. We've seen the horrors of history. That's why it's scary.
Yeah yeah, America lived on and stuff after all of that. But a lot of oppressed minorities didn’t. And if you're any minority group that the ruling party doesn't like right now, you are totally justified in being deathly afraid.
(For the record, I was against centralization of executive power under Obama and Bush too. But open and blatant disrespect like this is as especially alarming and should be treated as such, not normalized or justified)
People are alarmed and concerned because they know it's not new. It's not difficult to find horrors in American history. Decorum and norms exist for the purpose of attempting to smooth over these stress points and make a safer power structure that hopefully prevents tragedies like this. The relative peace and safety we've enjoyed for the half century or so has been largely based on a modern era of good feelings and respectful norms.
When those norms go away and the authoritarian president dares the court to enforce the laws he breaks, people, rightly, get scared. The courts don't control the army, he does. I hope the generals remeber their oath, but oh yeah, he's been replacing them with loyalists too.
We know it isn't new. We've seen the horrors of history. That's why it's scary.
Yeah yeah, America lived on and stuff after all of that. But a lot of oppressed minorities didn’t. And if you're any minority group that the ruling party doesn't like right now, you are totally justified in being deathly afraid.
(For the record, I was against centralization of executive power under Obama and Bush too. But open and blatant disrespect like this is as especially alarming and should be treated as such, not normalized or justified)
[deleted]
I don't disagree; except on the point that this is open and blatant disrespect. I don't have the impression that the purpose of this action is to subvert the judicial branch toward the goal of centralizing power into the executive branch. It could be interpreted that way, but the reality is that constitutional law on this is pretty clear, and Trump hasn't gotten to the point of breaching the constitution (yet).
If you've followed Trump for long enough, one of the things he talks about a lot are the "unelected bureaucrats" in the government making the real laws that end up impacting Americans day-to-day, more than Congress oftentimes. That's who this is targeted at; subordinates within the executive branch. This isn't a law, or even an interpretation of an existing law, or an expansion of executive branch powers, or even an expansion of the powers of the office of the President (because legally, as far as I know, the President has always had this power); its best described as a memo elaborating a process.
One example that might be applicable here is Net Neutrality. FCC enforcement of Net Neutrality goes back and forth; it was about to happen, until Trump in 2017 when the ruling was cancelled, and then in 2023 it came back, and now it probably won't happen again. What you're seeing there is, in the most accurate sense, something this action would expressly cover. There's zero congressional law dealing with net neutrality. Every time the FCC has touched the topic, its been the unelected bureaucratic appointment of the latest elected President making a new rule that can just as quickly be overturned or interpreted differently by the next President. Trump's new action just recognizes a process that's already been happening, basically forever.
What net neutrality really needs is the same thing a ton of these bureaucratic agencies need: a law, passed by congress. Write it in stone.
But, this is a rare thing in modern America, and maybe it always has been. Our legislative branch sucks. Seems like our Founding Fathers may have wanted it that way, but I doubt they fully understood the consequences. Getting it to do anything is like pulling hair, and that's why Executive Actions (read: authoritarian rule) have become so common. Trump, to some degree, through his mass layoffs, the defunding of various parts of the government, and now the codification of the process that the President makes decisions on-behalf-of the executive branch, is trying to scale the bureaucratic state back. Is that a good goal? Will it be successful? I don't know. But that is, under my interpretation, the best description of his aims.
If you've followed Trump for long enough, one of the things he talks about a lot are the "unelected bureaucrats" in the government making the real laws that end up impacting Americans day-to-day, more than Congress oftentimes. That's who this is targeted at; subordinates within the executive branch. This isn't a law, or even an interpretation of an existing law, or an expansion of executive branch powers, or even an expansion of the powers of the office of the President (because legally, as far as I know, the President has always had this power); its best described as a memo elaborating a process.
One example that might be applicable here is Net Neutrality. FCC enforcement of Net Neutrality goes back and forth; it was about to happen, until Trump in 2017 when the ruling was cancelled, and then in 2023 it came back, and now it probably won't happen again. What you're seeing there is, in the most accurate sense, something this action would expressly cover. There's zero congressional law dealing with net neutrality. Every time the FCC has touched the topic, its been the unelected bureaucratic appointment of the latest elected President making a new rule that can just as quickly be overturned or interpreted differently by the next President. Trump's new action just recognizes a process that's already been happening, basically forever.
What net neutrality really needs is the same thing a ton of these bureaucratic agencies need: a law, passed by congress. Write it in stone.
But, this is a rare thing in modern America, and maybe it always has been. Our legislative branch sucks. Seems like our Founding Fathers may have wanted it that way, but I doubt they fully understood the consequences. Getting it to do anything is like pulling hair, and that's why Executive Actions (read: authoritarian rule) have become so common. Trump, to some degree, through his mass layoffs, the defunding of various parts of the government, and now the codification of the process that the President makes decisions on-behalf-of the executive branch, is trying to scale the bureaucratic state back. Is that a good goal? Will it be successful? I don't know. But that is, under my interpretation, the best description of his aims.
> Trump isn't exposing new weaknesses in our system; the weaknesses have always been there.
exactly there; the system relies on everyone following the rules and doesn't have much in the way of remediation, other than impeachment, if the president just decides to ignore the other two branches. possibly SCOTUS, but they've hamstrung themselves with their recent decisions
exactly there; the system relies on everyone following the rules and doesn't have much in the way of remediation, other than impeachment, if the president just decides to ignore the other two branches. possibly SCOTUS, but they've hamstrung themselves with their recent decisions
And interestingly; its not clear to me that we'd have a better system if many of these weaknesses were patched. As software engineers might say, the quickest way to fix all the bugs in a system is to delete the system; the quickest way to a government perfectly resilient to authoritarian control is a government which simply can't do anything. This services no one.
At the end of the day, you can build safe-guards, and the American system of safeguards is among the best in the world. But, we also need leadership that can and will act to solve emergent problems, lest we cannot adapt to an evolving world. And, honestly, America has struggled for the past 20 years, especially since 2008. Our solution to everything has been "throw money at it", when we don't have the money we abuse our position as global reserve currency to just print more, and no one in charge has had any desire to think critically about how we get out of that hole, or how we solve any of the other problems the country faces smarter not richer.
I don't know if Trump and his team will make the problem better or worse. I feel pretty confident that they'll make it worse for some already-marginalized people, and I wish that wasn't the case, but the world that is likely to happen should we not solve these problems will not be kinder to them than the one they're in right now. Someone like Trump was guaranteed to happen after our insane, elitist, kick-the-can-down-the-road response to the GFC and COVID. There were saner voices in the room at those times. No one listened to them.
At the end of the day, you can build safe-guards, and the American system of safeguards is among the best in the world. But, we also need leadership that can and will act to solve emergent problems, lest we cannot adapt to an evolving world. And, honestly, America has struggled for the past 20 years, especially since 2008. Our solution to everything has been "throw money at it", when we don't have the money we abuse our position as global reserve currency to just print more, and no one in charge has had any desire to think critically about how we get out of that hole, or how we solve any of the other problems the country faces smarter not richer.
I don't know if Trump and his team will make the problem better or worse. I feel pretty confident that they'll make it worse for some already-marginalized people, and I wish that wasn't the case, but the world that is likely to happen should we not solve these problems will not be kinder to them than the one they're in right now. Someone like Trump was guaranteed to happen after our insane, elitist, kick-the-can-down-the-road response to the GFC and COVID. There were saner voices in the room at those times. No one listened to them.
Inflation is an extreme handout to the wealthy.
Money is by definition zero sum, otherwise the word "inflation" would have no meaning. There are good questions around what an over leveraged loan is, but fundamentally, the supply of money is to some degree fixed at any given moment.
The wealthy and powerful keep their money in tax benefited, inflation tracking assets. Many of those assets are stocks, and a major business cost is labor. Wages are generally not inflation tracking. That amplifies the benefit of inflation to the wealthy. So the buying power lost by suppressed wages and devalued savings, as well as the devaluing of all money currently in flight such as paychecks, is exactly gained by those with wealth/ownership. Inflation also makes loan's cheaper to pay off, further benefiting those with enough assets to get a loan.
When the market stagnates or companies freeze hiring or do mass layoffs, it puts employees in an even worse negotiating position resulting in even more suppressed wages past the first order effect of inflation.
So what's even better for the rich than tax breaks is inflation.
The fed is the beating heart of the economy, it pumps money through its sluices.
The fed is in many ways the Balrog deep in Moria.
Oligarchs do answer to other oligarchs, even if they don't answer to law, and there's a good chance that many of them see the impending potential disaster of either stagflation -- people won't have enough money to buy goods and the economy stalls and maybe doesn't restart, or hyperinflation -- the definitive end of American hegemony as countries move to a different reserve currency and America is no longer able to fund its military. The economy is also directly tied, if not most directly tied, to the legitimacy of the ruling regime, so a policy of choosing loyalists over qualifications or letting it be corrupted by someone selling out tomorrow for today is likely to lead to actual civil unrest instead of performative civil unrest.
My guess is that the finance business oligarchs see it as a red line because the moment the fed is corrupted, it's no longer their fed, but Trump's fed, and that will be equivalent to the moment Putin gathered all of Russia's oligarchs, with one of them in a diminutive cage in a court room, and then said "half" and held out his ring with the implication of the power relationship being clear (part of the greater story of the Magnitsky act).
It's also worth noting that normally you would get capital flight once the wealthy get scared, but the US has told every foreign country that American citizens in that country are under American jurisdiction and therefore all wealth must be reported to the US government, so while in the past an oligarch might have been happy to cause civil unrest with their unchecked greed, America's deep financial reach means that many will pay a hefty price, if they are even allowed exfiltrate the majority of their fortunes at all, binding them to the outcome of fed decisions as well.
But I'm very far from an expert, so probably wrong about some of that.
Money is by definition zero sum, otherwise the word "inflation" would have no meaning. There are good questions around what an over leveraged loan is, but fundamentally, the supply of money is to some degree fixed at any given moment.
The wealthy and powerful keep their money in tax benefited, inflation tracking assets. Many of those assets are stocks, and a major business cost is labor. Wages are generally not inflation tracking. That amplifies the benefit of inflation to the wealthy. So the buying power lost by suppressed wages and devalued savings, as well as the devaluing of all money currently in flight such as paychecks, is exactly gained by those with wealth/ownership. Inflation also makes loan's cheaper to pay off, further benefiting those with enough assets to get a loan.
When the market stagnates or companies freeze hiring or do mass layoffs, it puts employees in an even worse negotiating position resulting in even more suppressed wages past the first order effect of inflation.
So what's even better for the rich than tax breaks is inflation.
The fed is the beating heart of the economy, it pumps money through its sluices.
The fed is in many ways the Balrog deep in Moria.
Oligarchs do answer to other oligarchs, even if they don't answer to law, and there's a good chance that many of them see the impending potential disaster of either stagflation -- people won't have enough money to buy goods and the economy stalls and maybe doesn't restart, or hyperinflation -- the definitive end of American hegemony as countries move to a different reserve currency and America is no longer able to fund its military. The economy is also directly tied, if not most directly tied, to the legitimacy of the ruling regime, so a policy of choosing loyalists over qualifications or letting it be corrupted by someone selling out tomorrow for today is likely to lead to actual civil unrest instead of performative civil unrest.
My guess is that the finance business oligarchs see it as a red line because the moment the fed is corrupted, it's no longer their fed, but Trump's fed, and that will be equivalent to the moment Putin gathered all of Russia's oligarchs, with one of them in a diminutive cage in a court room, and then said "half" and held out his ring with the implication of the power relationship being clear (part of the greater story of the Magnitsky act).
It's also worth noting that normally you would get capital flight once the wealthy get scared, but the US has told every foreign country that American citizens in that country are under American jurisdiction and therefore all wealth must be reported to the US government, so while in the past an oligarch might have been happy to cause civil unrest with their unchecked greed, America's deep financial reach means that many will pay a hefty price, if they are even allowed exfiltrate the majority of their fortunes at all, binding them to the outcome of fed decisions as well.
But I'm very far from an expert, so probably wrong about some of that.
> Inflation is an extreme handout to the wealthy.
Debatable.
But the opposite, deflation, hits the poor much harder.
It was deflation, the gold standard, and the insistence of balanced budgets that caused revolutions all over the world:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austerity:_The_History_of_a_Da...
It was dropping prices that caused ferment in the US:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Gold_speech
It was FDR getting off the gold standard and balance budgets that helped the US recover:
* https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-money-makers-how-roosevelt-...
* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/24945314-the-money-maker...
> Money is by definition zero sum, otherwise the word "inflation" would have no meaning.
I have no idea what this even means.
Debatable.
But the opposite, deflation, hits the poor much harder.
It was deflation, the gold standard, and the insistence of balanced budgets that caused revolutions all over the world:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austerity:_The_History_of_a_Da...
It was dropping prices that caused ferment in the US:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Gold_speech
It was FDR getting off the gold standard and balance budgets that helped the US recover:
* https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-money-makers-how-roosevelt-...
* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/24945314-the-money-maker...
> Money is by definition zero sum, otherwise the word "inflation" would have no meaning.
I have no idea what this even means.
I wonder who you saw debating that. It looks really settled down and unanimous to me. Inflation is extremely harmful to poor people.
The only debate I see is about whether the Austrian school has a point and merely printing money is already harmful or if harm comes only when prices increase.
Also,
> But the opposite, deflation, hits the poor much harder.
Yes. Two different things can be true.
The only debate I see is about whether the Austrian school has a point and merely printing money is already harmful or if harm comes only when prices increase.
Also,
> But the opposite, deflation, hits the poor much harder.
Yes. Two different things can be true.
> I wonder who you saw debating that. It looks really settled down and unanimous to me. Inflation is extremely harmful to poor people.
The debate is about the alternatives / counter-factuals: would <0% inflation (read: deflation) be better or worse for poor people than >>0% inflation? How do those two compare to ~0% (e.g., 2%, the Fed target) inflation?
There's a reason why I linked to articles on the topic of the 'cross of gold' and austerity. We've had other ways of doing things in the past and are on the current system for a reason.
A lot of folks seem to want to get rid of the Fed, get back to gold, mercantilism (which is basically what Trump's tariffs are attempting), and generally go back to the 1800s way of doing money/finance:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_Age
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression
Try reading Project 2025's chapter on the Federal Reserve:
> Free Banking. In free banking, neither interest rates nor the supply of money is controlled by the government. The Federal Reserve is effectively abolished, and the Department of the Treasury largely limits itself to handling the government’s money. Regions of the U.S. actually had a similar system, known as the “Suffolk System,” from 1824 until the 1850s, and it minimized both inflation and economic disruption while allowing lending to flourish.[23]
[…]
> As in the Suffolk System, competition keeps banks from overprinting or lending irresponsibly. This is because any bank that issues more paper than it has assets available would be subject to competitor banks’ presenting its notes for redemption. In the extreme, an overissuing bank could be liable to a bank run.[!] Reckless banks’ competitors have good incentives to police risk closely lest their own holdings of competitor dollars become worthless.[24]
* https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_CHA...*
Yay! Bank runs!
The debate is about the alternatives / counter-factuals: would <0% inflation (read: deflation) be better or worse for poor people than >>0% inflation? How do those two compare to ~0% (e.g., 2%, the Fed target) inflation?
There's a reason why I linked to articles on the topic of the 'cross of gold' and austerity. We've had other ways of doing things in the past and are on the current system for a reason.
A lot of folks seem to want to get rid of the Fed, get back to gold, mercantilism (which is basically what Trump's tariffs are attempting), and generally go back to the 1800s way of doing money/finance:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_Age
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression
Try reading Project 2025's chapter on the Federal Reserve:
> Free Banking. In free banking, neither interest rates nor the supply of money is controlled by the government. The Federal Reserve is effectively abolished, and the Department of the Treasury largely limits itself to handling the government’s money. Regions of the U.S. actually had a similar system, known as the “Suffolk System,” from 1824 until the 1850s, and it minimized both inflation and economic disruption while allowing lending to flourish.[23]
[…]
> As in the Suffolk System, competition keeps banks from overprinting or lending irresponsibly. This is because any bank that issues more paper than it has assets available would be subject to competitor banks’ presenting its notes for redemption. In the extreme, an overissuing bank could be liable to a bank run.[!] Reckless banks’ competitors have good incentives to police risk closely lest their own holdings of competitor dollars become worthless.[24]
* https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_CHA...*
Yay! Bank runs!
> Inflation is an extreme handout to the wealthy.
> Debatable
Wait how is this debatable. We saw wealth inequality explode in ‘20 ‘21 ‘22 and ‘23 as the wealthiest Americans navigated rapid inflation and then rate cuts by strategically buying everything they could and then turning into activist investors and forcing RTO and mass layoffs despite record profits.
Wealthy people can take advantage of economic turmoil by selling high and buying low, the greatest example being Buffets mass sell off and subsequent repurchasing.
What am I missing?
> Debatable
Wait how is this debatable. We saw wealth inequality explode in ‘20 ‘21 ‘22 and ‘23 as the wealthiest Americans navigated rapid inflation and then rate cuts by strategically buying everything they could and then turning into activist investors and forcing RTO and mass layoffs despite record profits.
Wealthy people can take advantage of economic turmoil by selling high and buying low, the greatest example being Buffets mass sell off and subsequent repurchasing.
What am I missing?
> Wait how is this debatable. We saw wealth inequality explode in ‘20 ‘21 ‘22 and ‘23 as the wealthiest Americans navigated rapid inflation
What "rapid inflation"? Inflation was right around the historical average for 2020, 2021, 2023, and 2024. The only outlier was 2022 with 8% inflation, but that's still far from "rapid" historically speaking: https://www.minneapolisfed.org/about-us/monetary-policy/infl...
What "rapid inflation"? Inflation was right around the historical average for 2020, 2021, 2023, and 2024. The only outlier was 2022 with 8% inflation, but that's still far from "rapid" historically speaking: https://www.minneapolisfed.org/about-us/monetary-policy/infl...
> What am I missing?
Wealth inequality was previously at its highest point in the US during the Gilded Age, when the US was still on the gold standard and inflation was not as much of a thing (and deflation often reined):
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Deflation
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression
During the 1970s, US inflation was quite high:
* https://www.investopedia.com/inflation-rate-by-year-7253832
and yet during the same time period the wealth ownership of the top 0.1% went down:
* https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/nov/13/us-wealth-i...
US wealth inequality only really started rising in the 1980s—as inflation went down. Further, as The Guardian graph shows, concentration has gone up from the 1990s up until now, even though the last few decades have had the lowest, and most stable, inflation numbers in history:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Moderation
So the link between inflation and wealth concentration does not appear to have any correlation according to the historical data.
I would hazard to guess that a more promising link to wealth concentration/inequality would be the cutting of tax rates (both corporate and personal) starting during the Reagan administration, and how it reduced redistribution of money to the lower- and middle-class.
Wealth inequality was previously at its highest point in the US during the Gilded Age, when the US was still on the gold standard and inflation was not as much of a thing (and deflation often reined):
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Deflation
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression
During the 1970s, US inflation was quite high:
* https://www.investopedia.com/inflation-rate-by-year-7253832
and yet during the same time period the wealth ownership of the top 0.1% went down:
* https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/nov/13/us-wealth-i...
US wealth inequality only really started rising in the 1980s—as inflation went down. Further, as The Guardian graph shows, concentration has gone up from the 1990s up until now, even though the last few decades have had the lowest, and most stable, inflation numbers in history:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Moderation
So the link between inflation and wealth concentration does not appear to have any correlation according to the historical data.
I would hazard to guess that a more promising link to wealth concentration/inequality would be the cutting of tax rates (both corporate and personal) starting during the Reagan administration, and how it reduced redistribution of money to the lower- and middle-class.
> Money is by definition zero sum, otherwise the word "inflation" would have no meaning.
Not sure that I agree, nor that the one follows from the other.
Without having the advantage of an Economics degree, I have witnessed when rising tides have lifted all boats and a majority of U.S. society benefited. Perhaps "wealth" is not a zero sum.
And if that is case, talking about "money" is orthogonal. We should talk instead about disposable income, standard of living, etc.
Not sure that I agree, nor that the one follows from the other.
Without having the advantage of an Economics degree, I have witnessed when rising tides have lifted all boats and a majority of U.S. society benefited. Perhaps "wealth" is not a zero sum.
And if that is case, talking about "money" is orthogonal. We should talk instead about disposable income, standard of living, etc.
Currency is zero sum, prosperity shouldn’t be.
Discretionary income, really, not disposable. What we really should care about is the cash people have left over after they've paid for all their essentials, not just what's left over after taxes.
It might seem like it would sound impressive to say that someone has $20k/month of disposable income, but not so much if the housing market has gone crazy and groceries have become scarce and they have to spend $15k/month on a small apartment and barely enough food to feed themselves.
It might seem like it would sound impressive to say that someone has $20k/month of disposable income, but not so much if the housing market has gone crazy and groceries have become scarce and they have to spend $15k/month on a small apartment and barely enough food to feed themselves.
The money supply is not zero sum. Private lenders create money when they lend and are paid back the loan with interest.
It’s also why there’a always some level of inflation: Modest inflation is a sign of a healthy economy.
It’s also why there’a always some level of inflation: Modest inflation is a sign of a healthy economy.
This video starts with a good explanation of how lending creates new money https://youtu.be/8xzINLykprA
But capital gains - and business income taxes in a way, given how profit is calculated - do pay an inflationary tax since they're calculated on nominal gains, so I'm not at all convinced that the wealthy don't care about inflation since it erodes their wealth.
This effect can be minimized or neutered if their assets grow in real terms, but that only works in a growing-pie world, too
This effect can be minimized or neutered if their assets grow in real terms, but that only works in a growing-pie world, too
Inflation is a tax on the value of money. Those who can get a return on their money best can avoid some of the tax. Those people are the wealthy.
The way I see it, the excuse for moving to a fiat currency was that the rich people owned all the gold and social mobility had stagnated, so they decided that an elastic money supply would provide some social mobility and could go towards rewarding and building up an intellectual class.
But what happened is that a small subset of elites managed to capture the flow of new fiat money, creating even more concentration. Some social mobility was made possible, but only at the behest of this tiny number of elites... And now it's looking like we're reaching the end of that cycle and social mobility is screeching to a halt... The sheer, grotesque misallocation of fiat money has become hard to ignore. The misallocation appears to be unlimited and serves political agendas. Unlike in the gold-backed era where the elites had to provide actual value to earn their scarce gold, the elite of the current era (and their hand-picked minions) got their wealth mostly through rent-seeking and monopolization of government institutions which provided access to unlimited streams of money.
So now we have no social mobility, inequality is worse than ever (and accelerating) and we have an elite class which is ill-equipped to run any kind of economy which creates value. We are in a situation even worse than the gold-backed money era. At least then, the money was in the hands of people who COULD leverage it to deliver real value out of it. People could dig themselves out of their poverty by providing value which was worth its weight in gold. It was a level playing field. The only people who had priority access to gold were those who dug it out of the ground at great risk/expense to themselves. Nowadays, there is no heuristic or logic that you can use to dig yourself out of poverty. There is no logic behind social mobility aside from social scheming; to be chosen/funded by the elite; which produces no economic value for anyone, not even the elite. They don't even know what they want anymore so they use their money to engage on wild zero-sum political manipulations; billionaires throwing huge amounts of money against each other; going mostly into the pockets of lunatic 'activists' and nothing gets done either way; all the billionaires agendas cancel out; it just creates more crazy people with money roaming around, creating intense divisions over nothing. At the end of the day, all these 'ideological' lunatics (aka experts) funded by billionaires just care about money and they're making up all kinds of nonsense arguments to justify their paychecks... Pretending that they actually care about all this stuff when really, it's all 100% about paychecks. They're literally fighting over money, using all sorts of other ideas and social agendas as pretexts.
The people who have all the money to decide the direction of our economy and society do not have the ability or even the desire to improve it to make it work efficiently in any broad sense; they are only skilled in terms of wealth concentration, not wealth creation.
At this stage, I'm convinced that the economy would work better if the government just started handing out millions of dollars of free money to everyone and let global hyperinflation happen.
But what happened is that a small subset of elites managed to capture the flow of new fiat money, creating even more concentration. Some social mobility was made possible, but only at the behest of this tiny number of elites... And now it's looking like we're reaching the end of that cycle and social mobility is screeching to a halt... The sheer, grotesque misallocation of fiat money has become hard to ignore. The misallocation appears to be unlimited and serves political agendas. Unlike in the gold-backed era where the elites had to provide actual value to earn their scarce gold, the elite of the current era (and their hand-picked minions) got their wealth mostly through rent-seeking and monopolization of government institutions which provided access to unlimited streams of money.
So now we have no social mobility, inequality is worse than ever (and accelerating) and we have an elite class which is ill-equipped to run any kind of economy which creates value. We are in a situation even worse than the gold-backed money era. At least then, the money was in the hands of people who COULD leverage it to deliver real value out of it. People could dig themselves out of their poverty by providing value which was worth its weight in gold. It was a level playing field. The only people who had priority access to gold were those who dug it out of the ground at great risk/expense to themselves. Nowadays, there is no heuristic or logic that you can use to dig yourself out of poverty. There is no logic behind social mobility aside from social scheming; to be chosen/funded by the elite; which produces no economic value for anyone, not even the elite. They don't even know what they want anymore so they use their money to engage on wild zero-sum political manipulations; billionaires throwing huge amounts of money against each other; going mostly into the pockets of lunatic 'activists' and nothing gets done either way; all the billionaires agendas cancel out; it just creates more crazy people with money roaming around, creating intense divisions over nothing. At the end of the day, all these 'ideological' lunatics (aka experts) funded by billionaires just care about money and they're making up all kinds of nonsense arguments to justify their paychecks... Pretending that they actually care about all this stuff when really, it's all 100% about paychecks. They're literally fighting over money, using all sorts of other ideas and social agendas as pretexts.
The people who have all the money to decide the direction of our economy and society do not have the ability or even the desire to improve it to make it work efficiently in any broad sense; they are only skilled in terms of wealth concentration, not wealth creation.
At this stage, I'm convinced that the economy would work better if the government just started handing out millions of dollars of free money to everyone and let global hyperinflation happen.
If you're wondering why the President can essentially write his own laws when that's not how our system is supposed to work, it's because the President gets extra powers whenever we're in a state of national emergency.
We've been in a state of national emergency since 1979.
We've been in a state of national emergency since 1979.
States of emergency should at least go to congress for renewal every 3 months as a measure to be voted on individually (cannot be tied, for example, to budgets). If that's not enough to kill it eventually, it should automatically become a ballot measure on the next Presidential Ballot after some number of renewals.
Emergencies must be renewed annually by the President. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12170:
> The order was first declared on 14 November 1979 (EO 12170). At least 11 executive orders were based on this emergency state. The emergency, which was renewed in 2023 for the 44th time, is the "oldest existing state of emergency."
> The order was first declared on 14 November 1979 (EO 12170). At least 11 executive orders were based on this emergency state. The emergency, which was renewed in 2023 for the 44th time, is the "oldest existing state of emergency."
> Emergencies must be renewed annually by the President.
This is like agencies investigating themselves and inevitably finding themselves clear of any wrongdoing.
This is like agencies investigating themselves and inevitably finding themselves clear of any wrongdoing.
That's equivalent to emergencies being permanent and not subject to oversight.
There is very little difference between the president saying "there's an emergency until I say there isn't", and repeating every year, "there's an emergency for the next year".
Though that Wikipedia article does say that Congress is supposed to review emergency orders, but in practice they just let the president do whatever.
There is very little difference between the president saying "there's an emergency until I say there isn't", and repeating every year, "there's an emergency for the next year".
Though that Wikipedia article does say that Congress is supposed to review emergency orders, but in practice they just let the president do whatever.
There’s a lot of common sense “should” statements that are true and will never happen
The national emergency declared in 1979, against Iran, was done under the IEEPA which grants the President the power to block transactions and freeze assets against foreign threats. It doesn't grant the power to make laws.
You're delegating powers to the President that would normally require an act of congress. The sanctions against Iran are a relatively tame example, there's 46 other national emergencies that give the President far more power.
Here's some good reading:
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/27/democrats-biden-som...
They successfully argued the President can just attack other countries whenever he wants, so long as it's part of fighting "terrorism".
Here's some good reading:
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/27/democrats-biden-som...
They successfully argued the President can just attack other countries whenever he wants, so long as it's part of fighting "terrorism".
Wow thanks man for sharing! This is so unexpected, I thought you're trolling! But google search doesn't lie: https://www.history.com/news/national-state-of-emergency-us-....
Quoting from History.com: "When Donald Trump started his second term on January 20, 2025, the United States had around 40 active emergency declarations (no really, we are serious), including the national emergency George W. Bush declared in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks".
Quoting from History.com: "When Donald Trump started his second term on January 20, 2025, the United States had around 40 active emergency declarations (no really, we are serious), including the national emergency George W. Bush declared in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks".
For anyone interested in some more reading about the exact nature of the powers and Congress's attempts at limiting it, I found this link to be a decent introduction: https://protectdemocracy.org/work/presidential-emergency-pow...
Yeah. Dude. I don’t like the outcome, but he has “extra” powers because Republicans won a lot of elections and are a majority in all three branches of government and in many statehouses.
It's mostly the Republicans fault, but it didn't help that Biden supported it too, in spite of how other top Democrats felt:
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/27/democrats-biden-som...
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/27/democrats-biden-som...
> Republicans won a lot of elections
A lot of them thanks to the results of blatant gerrymandering.
A lot of them thanks to the results of blatant gerrymandering.
My candidate winning reflects the legitimate will of the people, and your candidate winning is solely due to gerrymandering. Of course.
Both parties[0][1] in fact do engage in gerrymandering.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27s_4th_congressional...
[1]: https://thefulcrum.us/electoral-reforms/worst-gerrymandered-...
Both parties[0][1] in fact do engage in gerrymandering.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27s_4th_congressional...
[1]: https://thefulcrum.us/electoral-reforms/worst-gerrymandered-...
That's a bad-faith argument. Yes, it's true that both parties engage in gerrymandering. But Republicans do it a lot more than Democrats do.
Out of the 25 examples in your second link, it seems like 23 of them are GOP gerrymanders?
Out of the 25 examples in your second link, it seems like 23 of them are GOP gerrymanders?
It seems that way because Republicans control most of the state legislatures at the moment. The term itself refers to a Massachusetts governor, a member of the predecessor of the current Democratic Party, who started the practice.
The minute Democrats control more of the state legislatures, you'll see that more examples will be of them.
The minute Democrats control more of the state legislatures, you'll see that more examples will be of them.
In your own link [1] all but 2 of the examples of worst gerrymanders are Republican...?
But uh yeah "both sides"... uh huh
But uh yeah "both sides"... uh huh
Would that be from Iran?
No, presidents can kind of claim national emergencies all the time. Usually they're used for sanctions, but they can also be for economic or security reasons (security being interpreted as times of war and in a very broad sense).
I guess I answered my own question. This is what I meant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12170
There's a bit of background at https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5152723-donald-t....
If there are better third-party reports, let me know and I'll add to this list. The above is just the first one bestowed by Google.
If there are better third-party reports, let me know and I'll add to this list. The above is just the first one bestowed by Google.
Honestly dang, I'm seeing mostly not thoughtful substantive commentary here, just ideological battling.
Which is a shame because this is certainly a topic it's possible to do that on (e.g. this comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43105417 ).
Are the good comments really worth the large amount of heat?
Which is a shame because this is certainly a topic it's possible to do that on (e.g. this comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43105417 ).
Are the good comments really worth the large amount of heat?
I'm seeing a lot of helpful discussion, and I'm learning a lot. It's been easy for me to skip over the hyperbole.
When I made that post this was in the main branch (e.g. starting at top comment and going down you hit this before any leaf): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43103830
But every thing stated in the comment you linked is provably true. It's certainly concerning, but I can't see a single statement they made with a dubious basis in truth.
Are there any parts that you think violate the guidelines specifically?
Are there any parts that you think violate the guidelines specifically?
It doesn't matter if every part of it is factually true or not - it doesn't add anything to the discussion.
Yeah, this. It substantially worsens the heat/light ratio of ensuing discussion and adds little.
Trump is not an obscure topic. "Trump lies all the time" is not a novel statement people won't have encountered and considered before, if someone already believes "Trump lies all the time" then that sentence tells them nothing new and if they don't believe it the post is hardly going to change their mind.
Trump is not an obscure topic. "Trump lies all the time" is not a novel statement people won't have encountered and considered before, if someone already believes "Trump lies all the time" then that sentence tells them nothing new and if they don't believe it the post is hardly going to change their mind.
The first sentence begins with "Trump lies through his teeth with every word"
Love him or hate him, I would argue that there are indeed words Trump has spoken which are not lies made through his teeth. I would put that level of hyperbole within the realm of "dubious basis in truth".
Love him or hate him, I would argue that there are indeed words Trump has spoken which are not lies made through his teeth. I would put that level of hyperbole within the realm of "dubious basis in truth".
Oh c'mon, that's just silly. That statement is so clearly rhetorical hyperbole that it doesn't need to pass any standard of truth. Trump lies. A lot. That is provably true. "Trump lies through his teeth with every word" is a reasonable hyperbolic expression of that truth.
They literally said "provably true".
Trump absolutely lies a lot. He doesn't lie _all the time_. I don't think that's an inappropriate level of nuance for someone to acknowledge.
Trump absolutely lies a lot. He doesn't lie _all the time_. I don't think that's an inappropriate level of nuance for someone to acknowledge.
In this case I think the answer is probably yes, it's worth it. This thread turned out to be better than the median for political threads these days, which of course is a low bar. (I agree with you that https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43103830 is the opposite of what we want here).
HN is split between users who passionately want more political discussion and users who don't want HN to be overrun with politics (or flamewars). The former are more vocal but the latter are more numerous. (How do I know that? Because if it weren't the case, i.e. if the majority of HN wanted all these political threads on the front page, the pressure to do this would be far greater than it is, intense though it has been.)
The community is always split between readers who feel like "all stories on $Topic are being suppressed, this site is censored!" and readers who feel like "Hacker News is overrun with $Topic! This site should change its name to $Topic News!". How to balance out these conflicting vectors is an interesting optimization problem. I say interesting because the obvious solutions don't work. For example, some people feel like the moderators should just declare politics off-topic on HN—but that would actually politicize the site even more (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25785637).
Fortunately we worked out a strategy that has held up well over the years. Here are a couple recent posts that cover it:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42614703
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42978389
... and there's lots more at https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so....
HN is split between users who passionately want more political discussion and users who don't want HN to be overrun with politics (or flamewars). The former are more vocal but the latter are more numerous. (How do I know that? Because if it weren't the case, i.e. if the majority of HN wanted all these political threads on the front page, the pressure to do this would be far greater than it is, intense though it has been.)
The community is always split between readers who feel like "all stories on $Topic are being suppressed, this site is censored!" and readers who feel like "Hacker News is overrun with $Topic! This site should change its name to $Topic News!". How to balance out these conflicting vectors is an interesting optimization problem. I say interesting because the obvious solutions don't work. For example, some people feel like the moderators should just declare politics off-topic on HN—but that would actually politicize the site even more (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25785637).
Fortunately we worked out a strategy that has held up well over the years. Here are a couple recent posts that cover it:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42614703
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42978389
... and there's lots more at https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so....
neom(4)
this is impacting scientific research to the point that people are scrubbing the word "gender" from their papers to avoid their research programs getting flagged by the doge gestapo
[deleted]
Given that it took about two centuries for the public to accept the heliocentric model, some patience may be needed. A great number of people only learn about gender through undergraduate education. And, iirc, only 25% of the population have undergraduate degrees.
[deleted]
scarab92(2)
>A White House Liaison is to be installed in every independent regulatory agency to enforce direct presidential control
Wow. Literally installing political officers in agencies.
Wow. Literally installing political officers in agencies.
Incidentally, this is still how it works in China today.
It's the Leninist model of governance which was the reason China was able to defy Western expectations that economic freedom would eventually lead to political freedom.
But there is one difference which is that the Leninist model also involves party loyalists being appointed to corporations. The US isn't there yet.
But there is one difference which is that the Leninist model also involves party loyalists being appointed to corporations. The US isn't there yet.
Not yet, but now we have major corporate leaders very publicly aligning themselves with the party and in the case of Musk actively directing party policies.
Political commissars
> The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
Seems fine that the bureaucrats to whom executive power is delegated should be answerable to the executive.
Seems fine that the bureaucrats to whom executive power is delegated should be answerable to the executive.
They already are, via cabinet members and their deputies/undersecretaries. Those people are appointed by the president, but need to be confirmed by the Senate as a check on the president's power.
Trump is doing another end run around the confirmation process with his "liaisons".
Trump is doing another end run around the confirmation process with his "liaisons".
Well, some of them are, indirectly. But there are also those allegedly independent agencies (which, although maybe not a bad idea, is probably unconstitutional—we don’t have a fourth branch).
Yeah this is a key tenant of the MAGA 2016 and 2024 campaigns: draining the swamp, fighting the deep state, etc.
How else is the executive supposed to align fed bureaucrats to his goals?
How else is the executive supposed to align fed bureaucrats to his goals?
The unitary executive theory is hardly a maga invention.
Honestly didn't know it had a name, but didn't claim maga invented it. They did run on bringing the "deep state" into line with Trump.
It makes sense to me, as a worker bee, i know I have to do what the boss says
It makes sense to me, as a worker bee, i know I have to do what the boss says
[deleted]
It works for red China, why not the USA too?
BTW, it's not Trump we're going to have to worry about. It's the next guy, who will have Trump imprisoned or executed for treason. This one won't be a blunderer, though, and will seize these levers of control much more firmly and competently.
BTW, it's not Trump we're going to have to worry about. It's the next guy, who will have Trump imprisoned or executed for treason. This one won't be a blunderer, though, and will seize these levers of control much more firmly and competently.
Stephen Miller worked the DHS and HHS the way you described in the first Trump administration. Presumably Biden had ample time to “seize these levers” no?
Don't fall for the "us vs. them" distraction. This is about seizing power, not Democrats and Republicans.
Biden chose not to use the power available to him to its full extent. He could have done something really extreme with the immunity he was granted by SCOTUS, but instead, he disavowed it.
That's because people who are not power-hungry see the dangers in becoming too powerful (and therefore often best suited to be in power). Not saying Biden was the best president ever or anything, but power-hungry leaders for the most part do not work out well for citizens -- history is full of examples.
My understanding is that politicians are elected whereas bureaucrats are not.
I don't see the point you are making? It isn't politicians that are getting elected to be White House Liaisons, they will almost certainly be appointed.
And these sorts of people should need to be confirmed by the Senate, but of course Trump is not going to do that.
Wait DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) is real??
I live an ocean apart from the U.S and all this time I thought it was a meme.
"Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies" - ah, one of those Government things where the title is exactly what it is not. "Department of Justice", there's another.
The phrase you are looking for is "Orwellian doublespeak".
“At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it?-- Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never!--All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”
https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/lyceum...
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”
https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/lyceum...
I have never read this, but I really really enjoyed it. It is a great and succinct explanation of the circumstances leading up to a civil war. Very applicable to the situation in the U.S. today.
Who is actually behind all these executive orders?
Do they all originate by the President saying "I want X" in reaction to something, and lawyers figuring out how to do X?
Do some of them originate with a wishlist of some extremist think tank or powerful people, and they finally found a President who'll rubberstamp them?
Other?
Do they all originate by the President saying "I want X" in reaction to something, and lawyers figuring out how to do X?
Do some of them originate with a wishlist of some extremist think tank or powerful people, and they finally found a President who'll rubberstamp them?
Other?
They put out a whole playbook called Project 2025, developed by a bunch of insane people at the Heritage Foundation. Trump lied and said he didn't know anything about it. Now they're doing it.
Actually, he said during the Kamala debate that it had "some good ideas and some bad ideas" to my recollection.
[citation needed]
> “I have nothing to do with Project 2025,” Trump said in the ABC News Presidential Debate. “I haven’t read it. I don’t want to read it purposely. I’m not going to read it.”
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-i-have-nothing-t...
> “I have nothing to do with Project 2025,” Trump said in the ABC News Presidential Debate. “I haven’t read it. I don’t want to read it purposely. I’m not going to read it.”
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-i-have-nothing-t...
To fill out the quote (from ABC's transcript) "Number one, I have nothing to do, as you know and as she knows better than anyone, I have nothing to do with Project 2025. That's out there. I haven't read it. I don't want to read it, purposely. I'm not going to read it. This was a group of people that got together, they came up with some ideas. I guess some good, some bad."
What is it that you think your characterization adds that I missed?
[deleted]
[deleted]
Not only did they put out a playbook, they actively recruited and screened people to take government positions. I read a post on Reddit from someone who went through the training. The whole idea was to find ideological supporters. Trump's problem in 2016 was that he wasn't prepared and relied a lot on existing government supporters and established GOP figures, who weren't completely loyal. This time, they were prepared. That's the reason why he's been able to move so quickly in the first month.
This is also why I'm flabbergasted that a lot of people seem to be dismissing all of this with words like "we survived his first term, the second will be no different". It is different! Incredibly different!
It seemed like Trump was genuinely surprised he won the first time. They were completely unprepared. But now they are very, very prepared, and they know exactly who to put in various positions in government, people who will never balk at what Trump wants to do.
It seemed like Trump was genuinely surprised he won the first time. They were completely unprepared. But now they are very, very prepared, and they know exactly who to put in various positions in government, people who will never balk at what Trump wants to do.
No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law
In other words, "I will interpret the law for you, from now on. Don't attempt to read the law yourself."
In other words, "I will interpret the law for you, from now on. Don't attempt to read the law yourself."
There are no laws in Oceania, only crimes.
Direct link to the order : https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/ensu...
In short, Trump is claiming full and direct authority and control over any and all federal agencies, with the express directive of "The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch. "
Basically : L'État, c'est moi.
In short, Trump is claiming full and direct authority and control over any and all federal agencies, with the express directive of "The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch. "
Basically : L'État, c'est moi.
> Section 1. Policy and Purpose. [..] Since it would be impossible for the President to single-handedly perform all the executive business of the Federal Government [..]
Yup. You gotta have some time left to golf with your cronies..
Yup. You gotta have some time left to golf with your cronies..
Nuclear-armed dictatorship, and the strongest military power on the planet, run by Donald Trump.
All bets now off.
All bets now off.
Well he is talking about disarming US nukes
Well he already started firing the employees in charge of the nuclear arsenal..
https://archive.is/qOYI2
https://archive.is/qOYI2
Horrifying, and it plays right into Putin's desires.
God help us all.
God help us all.
“ Sec. 7. Rules of Conduct Guiding Federal Employees’ Interpretation of the Law. The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch. The President and the Attorney General’s opinions on questions of law are controlling on all employees in the conduct of their official duties. No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law, including but not limited to the issuance of regulations, guidance, and positions advanced in litigation, unless authorized to do so by the President or in writing by the Attorney General.”
This does not bode well for that country’s democracy.
This does not bode well for that country’s democracy.
I think a lot of people that are freaking out are missing that this applies to the executive branch, over whom the President has already perfectly well established. Literally the first statement of article 2 of the US Constitution (which lays out the power/rules for the executive branch) is "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."
The main point of this executive order is likely part of the ongoing issues related to the chevron deference. [1] Chevron deference [1] was a (IMO very weird) legal standard that was overturned in 2024. It required the judicial to completely defer to the executive branch in cases where the laws around executive departments (generally relating to the the limits of their regulatory power/authority) were ambiguous. When this was overturned, the judiciary regained their independence and were once again able to hear and independently judge cases around these executive departments.
This order is now stating that the executive branch departments themselves will no longer be independently interpreting the law at all, but instead defer to the legal opinions of the head of the executive. The order itself also makes it clear that it does not allow rejecting or unreasonably redefining the laws applying to the various departments - instead the main issue is where potential ambiguities and related limits/allowances will be determined. And of course those determinations could then be challenged by either the judiciary or the legislative (by passing overriding laws).
The short version of this is "Executive departments will now be directly accountable to all three branches of government - executive, legislative, and judicial."
[1] - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference
The main point of this executive order is likely part of the ongoing issues related to the chevron deference. [1] Chevron deference [1] was a (IMO very weird) legal standard that was overturned in 2024. It required the judicial to completely defer to the executive branch in cases where the laws around executive departments (generally relating to the the limits of their regulatory power/authority) were ambiguous. When this was overturned, the judiciary regained their independence and were once again able to hear and independently judge cases around these executive departments.
This order is now stating that the executive branch departments themselves will no longer be independently interpreting the law at all, but instead defer to the legal opinions of the head of the executive. The order itself also makes it clear that it does not allow rejecting or unreasonably redefining the laws applying to the various departments - instead the main issue is where potential ambiguities and related limits/allowances will be determined. And of course those determinations could then be challenged by either the judiciary or the legislative (by passing overriding laws).
The short version of this is "Executive departments will now be directly accountable to all three branches of government - executive, legislative, and judicial."
[1] - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference
This is just a statement of the unitary executive theory. Unitary executive theory is controversial, and the controversy there did not (until, oh about last month) align with party lines.
We’re not “missing” anything, your interpretation of the Constitution is incorrect. You may want to scroll up and read Article I, which constrains Article II (that’s why it comes first).
Your understanding of Chevron deference is also incorrect, for what it’s worth.
Your understanding of Chevron deference is also incorrect, for what it’s worth.
> You may want to scroll up and read Article I, which constrains Article II (that’s why it comes first)
What in Article I imposes constraints on the presidency? It's almost all about the legislature itself, and hardly mentions the executive. Specifically, I don't see anything that lends credence to the idea that Congress can control the workings of executive departments.
What in Article I imposes constraints on the presidency? It's almost all about the legislature itself, and hardly mentions the executive. Specifically, I don't see anything that lends credence to the idea that Congress can control the workings of executive departments.
Congress created those departments, and specified how they should be staffed and operated, and what powers they were granted.
That's because the executive does not have the power to create those departments (Article II does not grant that power).
It's an undeniably weird setup: the departments are staffed and run by the executive branch, and they report up into the president, but they are still accountable to Congress, which is where their power to do anything is derived from.
That's because the executive does not have the power to create those departments (Article II does not grant that power).
It's an undeniably weird setup: the departments are staffed and run by the executive branch, and they report up into the president, but they are still accountable to Congress, which is where their power to do anything is derived from.
Article I defines the powers of Congress. Having been assigned to Congress, those powers are not available to the president.
Instead, the president is responsible for faithfully executing the laws. So if the law defines how an agency is staffed and makes policy, the president is bound by that.
If this seems like an imposition upon the president, please remember that the president agrees to these impositions in advance by signing the laws.
Instead, the president is responsible for faithfully executing the laws. So if the law defines how an agency is staffed and makes policy, the president is bound by that.
If this seems like an imposition upon the president, please remember that the president agrees to these impositions in advance by signing the laws.
> if the law defines how an agency is staffed and makes policy
Strongly contingent upon this, right? Wasn't the whole "administrative state" / "Chevron deference" argument that Congress did the bare minimum in defining what an executive agency is supposed to do, left it up to the executive to direct it as it sees fit? And worse, the supposedly apolitical career civil servants in charge of these agencies may from time to time thwart the will of the democratically elected head of the executive?
Where is the people's recourse then?
Strongly contingent upon this, right? Wasn't the whole "administrative state" / "Chevron deference" argument that Congress did the bare minimum in defining what an executive agency is supposed to do, left it up to the executive to direct it as it sees fit? And worse, the supposedly apolitical career civil servants in charge of these agencies may from time to time thwart the will of the democratically elected head of the executive?
Where is the people's recourse then?
The original Chevron ruling was an expansion of executive branch power; it said courts should give “deference” to agencies in matters where Congress was not specific—usually in detailed findings of fact and definition of regulations, the work of the agency. Congress usually is specific about structure and governance.
The recent decision to formally overturn this precedent was a reduction in power for the executive branch, since it greatly expanded the scope of when a judge could overrule agencies. However, judges were mostly already doing this, so the big headline ruling was more like a funeral than a murder.
The recent decision to formally overturn this precedent was a reduction in power for the executive branch, since it greatly expanded the scope of when a judge could overrule agencies. However, judges were mostly already doing this, so the big headline ruling was more like a funeral than a murder.
> I don't see anything that lends credence to the idea that Congress can control the workings of executive departments.
Along with what others have said, you might want to recognize that Congress controls the purse. They dictate how much the executive should spend on each item, though that can be nuanced (as in "up to this much" vs "exactly this much")
Along with what others have said, you might want to recognize that Congress controls the purse. They dictate how much the executive should spend on each item, though that can be nuanced (as in "up to this much" vs "exactly this much")
> this applies to the executive branch
So he gets to tell police what the law is and who to arrest within the "law" that he proclaimed.
So he gets to tell police what the law is and who to arrest within the "law" that he proclaimed.
> It required the judicial to completely defer to the executive branch in cases where the laws around executive departments (generally relating to the the limits of their regulatory power/authority) were ambiguous.
Why doesn’t congress do its job and write laws that do things?
Why doesn’t congress do its job and write laws that do things?
Because the republicans punish their own when they reach out to support bipartisan efforts.
Even right now, congressmen have been threatened with being primaries if they don’t toe the line.
There has been multiple decades of very public efforts to degrade and break the American system. Ever since watergate.
Congress was broken.
Even right now, congressmen have been threatened with being primaries if they don’t toe the line.
There has been multiple decades of very public efforts to degrade and break the American system. Ever since watergate.
Congress was broken.
I don't disagree with you, and neither would the Founding Fathers. In fact they were even opposed to the concept of political parties, but the power/convenience they enable means that lasted all of 5 seconds. But I would say that Congressmen being threatened with being primaried if they do unpopular things is literally the entire point of representative democracy.
I think the question is when that pressure to obey is coming from the people and when it's instead coming from the party. In the ideal scenario the party and the people (at least the constituency) would be in lockstep. In any case term limits would help. If you're going to be out of office in at most two terms, it eliminates any point about sacrificing your values for some sort of long-term favor/benefit with the party.
I think the question is when that pressure to obey is coming from the people and when it's instead coming from the party. In the ideal scenario the party and the people (at least the constituency) would be in lockstep. In any case term limits would help. If you're going to be out of office in at most two terms, it eliminates any point about sacrificing your values for some sort of long-term favor/benefit with the party.
Why this conversation, where it seems like these things are mysterious?
Post watergate, Conservatives built FOX, they laid out their plan to break the american system, and take over to push their agenda.
No one took it seriously, and now when its happening, people are still unable to look at it.
You have the pantomine of a party. They have debates. They have primaries. They have a media organization which is 'independent'.
Post watergate, Conservatives built FOX, they laid out their plan to break the american system, and take over to push their agenda.
No one took it seriously, and now when its happening, people are still unable to look at it.
You have the pantomine of a party. They have debates. They have primaries. They have a media organization which is 'independent'.
The way regulatory authority works is that Congress writes laws that offer general guidance, and then regulatory body creates rules around that guidance. It can enable them to quickly react to changing scenarios, and also offer greater expertise or more detail than may be reasonable to expect of Congress. The issues arises when it's unclear if actions and guidance are aligned.
For a contemporary example, part of the CDC's power comes from Section 361 of the Public Health Services Act [1], which grants them the power to execute orders to prevent the spread of disease into the country or in between states. Examples included inspection, pest extermination, fumigation, and so on. The CDC invoked this power to prevent landlords from evicting delinquent tenants during the COVID stuff.
That was a gross enough (and also, critically, harmful enough) violation of their mandate that it was able to be challenged in the courts and eventually tossed even in the Chevon Deference era, but a lot of scenarios are much more ambiguous. So now their actions will be fully subject to oversight from all branches of government. The end result is that executive departments will have a much harder time overstepping the bounds of authority granted to them by Congress.
[1] - https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-8773/pdf/COMPS-877... (page 405)
For a contemporary example, part of the CDC's power comes from Section 361 of the Public Health Services Act [1], which grants them the power to execute orders to prevent the spread of disease into the country or in between states. Examples included inspection, pest extermination, fumigation, and so on. The CDC invoked this power to prevent landlords from evicting delinquent tenants during the COVID stuff.
That was a gross enough (and also, critically, harmful enough) violation of their mandate that it was able to be challenged in the courts and eventually tossed even in the Chevon Deference era, but a lot of scenarios are much more ambiguous. So now their actions will be fully subject to oversight from all branches of government. The end result is that executive departments will have a much harder time overstepping the bounds of authority granted to them by Congress.
[1] - https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-8773/pdf/COMPS-877... (page 405)
> The end result is that executive departments will have a much harder time overstepping the bounds of authority granted to them by Congress.
You could’ve fooled me.
You could’ve fooled me.
The solution is to fix congress, rather than further consolidate executive branch. Later leads to very predictable outcomes, and they aren’t exactly democratic.
I’ll choose stale democracy over striving autocracy each day every day.
I’ll choose stale democracy over striving autocracy each day every day.
It'll take some time, but I would highly recommend reading the oral argument transcript for the Chevron decision. You'll see some good history and opinions on why Congress now does what it does.
It wasn't always so. In 1979, when Chrysler wanted federal loan guarantees, Congress passed a specific act to do so. Contrast that with what's now a blanket check to agencies thru an Omnibus
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcr...
It wasn't always so. In 1979, when Chrysler wanted federal loan guarantees, Congress passed a specific act to do so. Contrast that with what's now a blanket check to agencies thru an Omnibus
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcr...
Where do you think all these powerful agencies came from?
You're misunderstanding the EO. It has nothing to do with the Chevron deference (and you are also misunderstanding the impact of the Chevron deference)
No - it’s a statement that the executive branch will (as a matter of policy) ignore Judicial and Congressional oversight. Unless it wants it, anyway.
This has nothing to do with "democracy" in any way. This is the equivalent of a CEO publishing a memo telling employees how to interpret things that happen outside of the company (e.g., new laws, social trends, etc.) It's the CEO's job to align their workforce to have the same interpretation of information. Federal judges can still rule on issues brought before them but the judges have to provide Constitutional- or precedent-related rulings.
Why are Americans acting so surprised that the President has this authority? That is his job, as it was for all presidents before him. This executive order is saying that the "employees under the CEO" do not have the authority to usurp the "CEO's" interpretations of law. Checks and balances still apply, of course; Congress can intervene if the President is acting in ways that Congress doesn't like. That's what impeachment is for--and impeachment is a process regardless of whether the President is issuing "illegal" executive orders or doing something else like what Nixon did.
The process works; blame Congress for not holding the President accountable in the ways outlined by the Constitution.
Why are Americans acting so surprised that the President has this authority? That is his job, as it was for all presidents before him. This executive order is saying that the "employees under the CEO" do not have the authority to usurp the "CEO's" interpretations of law. Checks and balances still apply, of course; Congress can intervene if the President is acting in ways that Congress doesn't like. That's what impeachment is for--and impeachment is a process regardless of whether the President is issuing "illegal" executive orders or doing something else like what Nixon did.
The process works; blame Congress for not holding the President accountable in the ways outlined by the Constitution.
I have a puzzle for you:
Let's say we have a democracy where the only rule is highest vote wins. Let's say 51% of the people vote to enslave/oppress the other 49%.
Maybe they vote for literal chattel slavery. Maybe they vote for healthcare for themselves but not the others. Maybe they vote to tax the others at the maximum possible or implement tax policies that dis-proportionally affect the 49%. Maybe they vote the 49% cannot own homes and therefore must pay rent to a landlord. Maybe they vote that the 49% must register for the draft, but not them. Maybe they vote that the 49% aren't eligible for public school while they are. Maybe they vote that the 49% is not able to own stock or register for a company. Let's pretend those are legal, it is definitely possible. Slavery at one point was constitutionally allowed.
Is that a Democracy? A Liberal Democracy? A Democratic Republic? A Constitutional Democratic Republic if the law were enshrined on paper?
Would you want to live in that country? Would you want to live in that country if you were in the 49%?
What is the key ingredient that makes something a "Democracy" rather than tyranny of the majority, "mob rule," or "might makes right"?
Let's say we have a democracy where the only rule is highest vote wins. Let's say 51% of the people vote to enslave/oppress the other 49%.
Maybe they vote for literal chattel slavery. Maybe they vote for healthcare for themselves but not the others. Maybe they vote to tax the others at the maximum possible or implement tax policies that dis-proportionally affect the 49%. Maybe they vote the 49% cannot own homes and therefore must pay rent to a landlord. Maybe they vote that the 49% must register for the draft, but not them. Maybe they vote that the 49% aren't eligible for public school while they are. Maybe they vote that the 49% is not able to own stock or register for a company. Let's pretend those are legal, it is definitely possible. Slavery at one point was constitutionally allowed.
Is that a Democracy? A Liberal Democracy? A Democratic Republic? A Constitutional Democratic Republic if the law were enshrined on paper?
Would you want to live in that country? Would you want to live in that country if you were in the 49%?
What is the key ingredient that makes something a "Democracy" rather than tyranny of the majority, "mob rule," or "might makes right"?
Well, it is a democracy, the key being that the majority of people voted for some law. Whether you'd want to live in the country is a different story. Sometimes, democracies are not always the best form of government, they are as susceptible to systemic issues as any other form of government.
So you do not understand what a democracy is and how it works.
Balance of the three branches of government and the rule of law and protection of minorities are the complementary requirements to the majority vote, to qualify for a democracy.
Balance of the three branches of government and the rule of law and protection of minorities are the complementary requirements to the majority vote, to qualify for a democracy.
That would exclude every parliamentary democracy in Europe, so no.
Also, the word 'democracy' does not appear in either the US Constitution or the Declaration of Independence, so it's weird to make the argument you are making. The Founding Fathers never envisioned a party system to begin with. Women and obviously slaves could not vote. The US has only been getting more democratic over time. Your argument looks a bit like historical revisionism to me.
The earliest "democracy" (demokratia) dates back to the Greeks (and for free men, anyway), and Aristotle's Politica will tell you a bit about it.
Also, the word 'democracy' does not appear in either the US Constitution or the Declaration of Independence, so it's weird to make the argument you are making. The Founding Fathers never envisioned a party system to begin with. Women and obviously slaves could not vote. The US has only been getting more democratic over time. Your argument looks a bit like historical revisionism to me.
The earliest "democracy" (demokratia) dates back to the Greeks (and for free men, anyway), and Aristotle's Politica will tell you a bit about it.
> That would exclude every parliamentary democracy in Europe, so no.
There are variants (especially executive and legislative work more closely) but please list those where there is no constitutional or customary such a balance between executive, legislative and judiciary?
Thanks for suggesting I don’t know my classics, you seem not so certain about modern European democracies.
There are variants (especially executive and legislative work more closely) but please list those where there is no constitutional or customary such a balance between executive, legislative and judiciary?
Thanks for suggesting I don’t know my classics, you seem not so certain about modern European democracies.
You don't need separation of powers to "qualify for democracy", per your statement above. That just simply isn't true. Democracy is, simply put, a form of government where power emanates from the people. That the separation of powers is for the best we obviously agree on, but to say that it is suddenly a necessary requirement for "democracy" is simply just redefining what the word "democracy" means.
In the simplest sense of the word, none of that is needed. Athens had such a democracy, where a majority of people made a decision so. You are putting more stipulations on the word than are strictly necessary, hence why I said the democracy examples you gave would not be great places to live in.
You referring back to only Athens when we have had several centuries of political history and progress, is embarrassing.
The Constitution of the USA was especially a model of its kind. Until we realized its implementation went lacking from true believers, for what we can witness since January 20th.
Check also the constitutions of modern democracies throughout the world.
Something that depends only on the rule of the majority, without constitutional guarantees of the respect of the law, without a self-defense system against abuse of power is a relic of the past prototype democracies.
The Constitution of the USA was especially a model of its kind. Until we realized its implementation went lacking from true believers, for what we can witness since January 20th.
Check also the constitutions of modern democracies throughout the world.
Something that depends only on the rule of the majority, without constitutional guarantees of the respect of the law, without a self-defense system against abuse of power is a relic of the past prototype democracies.
> You referring back to only Athens when we have had several centuries of political history and progress, is embarrassing.
> The Constitution of the USA was especially a model of its kind.
Then how is it that the US in its inception, like Greece, did not allow neither women nor all men (slaves) to vote? Clearly not much progress had been made by then. Much of the progress was made in the Civil rights movement, for example. That was last century, not "several centuries".
To be clear, summarizing my other replies to your comments, I am 100% with you that all of the things you mention are good things, and that they should be defended. But your redefinition of democracy (and American democracy in particular) doesn't parse and seems to be the product of historical revisionism.
> The Constitution of the USA was especially a model of its kind.
Then how is it that the US in its inception, like Greece, did not allow neither women nor all men (slaves) to vote? Clearly not much progress had been made by then. Much of the progress was made in the Civil rights movement, for example. That was last century, not "several centuries".
To be clear, summarizing my other replies to your comments, I am 100% with you that all of the things you mention are good things, and that they should be defended. But your redefinition of democracy (and American democracy in particular) doesn't parse and seems to be the product of historical revisionism.
I may have been more fussy than revisionist then, sorry for that.
What I was (unexplicitly enough) implying is that I don’t see how a stable democracy, going forward, could work, without implementing those improvements mechanisms that emerged through time and experience.
A pure Athenian democracy today at the scale of a country, with the complexities of the day, wouldn’t hold for more than a few years, at best.
What I was (unexplicitly enough) implying is that I don’t see how a stable democracy, going forward, could work, without implementing those improvements mechanisms that emerged through time and experience.
A pure Athenian democracy today at the scale of a country, with the complexities of the day, wouldn’t hold for more than a few years, at best.
You asked whether something is a democracy, not a modern democracy, hence why I gave the examples I did. And even in a modern one, I am unconvinced that just because there are features like you mention for modern democracies does not make them not actual democracies. They very well can be, by the dictionary definition of the word, just not free ones.
Also, no need for the ad hominems, there is no reason to accuse me of not understanding something or it being "embarrassing," that is not helpful to any sort of conversation.
Also, no need for the ad hominems, there is no reason to accuse me of not understanding something or it being "embarrassing," that is not helpful to any sort of conversation.
I get your point. But calling your argument embarrassing is not an ad hominem.
I’m not saying you do not understand. I am implying that in a discussion in the XXIth century about the concept of democracy as it has evolved in both the littérature and the history, and has been demonstrably stable and efficient, “democracy” is understood in the modern acception, and especially here, in the context of the USA Constitution - and there it has the requirements I laid out.
Turning any country today into an antique democracy rule would make no sense, unless you accept a peculiar instability. We have experienced, in many nations, how to adjust and balance how a democracy can work and self-sustain. However, we also still experience how fragile they stay.
And the disappointment is abysmal. Hence, perhaps, me being a tad tense in my words, for that I present my apologies.
I’m not saying you do not understand. I am implying that in a discussion in the XXIth century about the concept of democracy as it has evolved in both the littérature and the history, and has been demonstrably stable and efficient, “democracy” is understood in the modern acception, and especially here, in the context of the USA Constitution - and there it has the requirements I laid out.
Turning any country today into an antique democracy rule would make no sense, unless you accept a peculiar instability. We have experienced, in many nations, how to adjust and balance how a democracy can work and self-sustain. However, we also still experience how fragile they stay.
And the disappointment is abysmal. Hence, perhaps, me being a tad tense in my words, for that I present my apologies.
That sounds like Ancient Greek democracy except the gap was much larger than 51-49.
If you ignore all context, their support of the unitary executive (anti-american) theory, and the recent comments that "if a president does it, it isn't breaking the law" and "going against the will of the president is going against the will of the people"...
If you ignore ALL of that then you have a talking point worth debating.
If you ignore ALL of that then you have a talking point worth debating.
Because people in independent agencies are by act protected from exactly these things. Think for a bit, why were they not just called "agencies"?
And for all the stupidity of congress, if the fail to protect against a self-coup, that doesn't make it any less likely.
And for all the stupidity of congress, if the fail to protect against a self-coup, that doesn't make it any less likely.
[flagged]
I've been seeing posts like this all over hacker news. They appear to be structured like rational arguments but really make no logical sense.
I have no doubt that these people know exactly what they are doing, and are intentionally lying and spreading these "very reasonable" arguments as a blueprint for others to copy.
Their goal is to fluster and confuse the situation.
I have no doubt that these people know exactly what they are doing, and are intentionally lying and spreading these "very reasonable" arguments as a blueprint for others to copy.
Their goal is to fluster and confuse the situation.
It may be the case. I also genuinely think some people are not paying attention and think in a vacuum. They fail to see the malice and the words and writings from these people wanting to destroy the function of the government.
But hey, the president is like a CEO, right?
But hey, the president is like a CEO, right?
The problem with the CEO as president metaphor is that the CEO of a company is functionally a dictator. If the company is private, then there are no checks on the CEO at all.
Calling someone a dictator is an accusation, something every American was taught was wrong in school. Calling someone a CEO is a compliment, something our collective media has taught us to aspire to.
CEO is just a softer word that makes submission easier, or even logical, while it hides the truth of that power structure which is functionally the same for both.
"The CEO metaphor re-frames political rule as a business operation, which makes executive overreach appear logical rather than dangerous."
This is a very effective manipulation technique.
https://commonslibrary.org/frame-the-debate-insights-from-do...
Calling someone a dictator is an accusation, something every American was taught was wrong in school. Calling someone a CEO is a compliment, something our collective media has taught us to aspire to.
CEO is just a softer word that makes submission easier, or even logical, while it hides the truth of that power structure which is functionally the same for both.
"The CEO metaphor re-frames political rule as a business operation, which makes executive overreach appear logical rather than dangerous."
This is a very effective manipulation technique.
https://commonslibrary.org/frame-the-debate-insights-from-do...
A large component of the right-wing media campaign for the last, well, all of my life has also been to normalize their actions by accusing The Other Side of doing it first. "Activist judges" was the most notable one.
Absolutely. So many are okay with Trump being openly corrupt and weaponizing the Justice department because "so did Biden".
Ancapistani(2)
This EO, combined with his proclamation that "He who saves the country does not violate any law" paint a very concerning picture. This has, historically speaking, been the language of tyrants. No President is above the law, nor does the President "interpret" the law; that is the domain of the Judiciary.
“Wherever law ends, tyranny begins”
“Wherever law ends, tyranny begins”
"He who saves the country" sounds suspiciously close to the "Founder Mode" thinking that Valley CEOs have been bandwagoning behind.
It’s a quote from Napoleon Bonaparte. The funny part is that Napoleon soon found out he was completely wrong.
> nor does the President "interpret" the law; that is the domain of the Judiciary
Everyone tasked with enforcing a law must necessarily interpret its meaning. The judiciary gets the final say though.
Everyone tasked with enforcing a law must necessarily interpret its meaning. The judiciary gets the final say though.
you are mixing up different meanings for the word "interpret". "Authoritative Interpreting law" (or in general interpreting law) doesn't mean "trying to understand what it means" but means "deciding what it means in practice"
especially if you add a "authoritative" in the front it in legal language means they gave themself the right (i.e. authority) to decide (i.e. interpret) how law should be interpreted, i.e. what the meaning behind the written word is in practice
this is 100% without doubt or question not compatible with any democracy (including the US constitution) and is pretty much one of the default approaches Dictators use to get unchecked authority
It means that in practice (assuming people comply with the EO) means they can do whatever they want as they can just willfully absurdly, but with authority , misinterpret laws. Including to e.g. persecute judges which "step out of line", or members of the senate which don't vote for whatever he wants etc.
especially if you add a "authoritative" in the front it in legal language means they gave themself the right (i.e. authority) to decide (i.e. interpret) how law should be interpreted, i.e. what the meaning behind the written word is in practice
this is 100% without doubt or question not compatible with any democracy (including the US constitution) and is pretty much one of the default approaches Dictators use to get unchecked authority
It means that in practice (assuming people comply with the EO) means they can do whatever they want as they can just willfully absurdly, but with authority , misinterpret laws. Including to e.g. persecute judges which "step out of line", or members of the senate which don't vote for whatever he wants etc.
The DOJ regularly provides guidance about its interpretations of laws. These letters are also “deciding what it means in practice.”
https://adata.org/interpretation-letter
Nobody complains about this though.
https://adata.org/interpretation-letter
Nobody complains about this though.
At least on criminal matters, pardons over-ride the judicial branch.
That’s an unrelated issue.
Who will enforce following the law if the executive branch ignores the judicial?
In theory the military is sworn to defend the constitution, but if the DOD is headed by a Trump loyalist (it is), then what?
In theory the military is sworn to defend the constitution, but if the DOD is headed by a Trump loyalist (it is), then what?
> Who will enforce following the law if the executive branch ignores the judicial?
Congress through impeachment. If they don't do that, all bets are off.
Congress through impeachment. If they don't do that, all bets are off.
But who enforces impeachment? Who evicts the President?
Upon impeaching the President, the VP would become President, and he would order the military to remove the ex-President. At that point the military would have to decide if it's more loyal to Congress or the ex-President.
Why would the President’s hand-picked buddy automatically play ball?
Because they could just as easily impeach him if he doesn't, then it falls to the Speaker of the House. But if I were them I would just impeach them both at the same time for the same reasons.
And who impeaches a President which just gave himself the right to authoritatively misinterpret the law in whatever way they want and in turn can trivially turn you live into a living hell if they insist too
especially if you yourself could get a part of the pie and don't think it will negatively affect you
I mean don't get me wrong if they would do so literally tomorrow it would work.
But as the majority of senate likely feel they have little to loose it won't be tomorrow.
And when they realize that maybe they won't get part of the pie (they are mostly now useless for him) it will be to late and the fear of repercussions will have set in.
especially if you yourself could get a part of the pie and don't think it will negatively affect you
I mean don't get me wrong if they would do so literally tomorrow it would work.
But as the majority of senate likely feel they have little to loose it won't be tomorrow.
And when they realize that maybe they won't get part of the pie (they are mostly now useless for him) it will be to late and the fear of repercussions will have set in.
There is no suggestion that that’s going to happen.
The Vice-President of the United States is openly suggesting it. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gx3j5k63xo.amp
and the president did too in slightly more subtle way
Not really. Here’s a good explanation from Harvard constitutional law professor Steve Vladeck.
https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/123-what-vice-president-vance...
https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/123-what-vice-president-vance...
The Supreme Court literally said that Trump has absolute immunity for criminal use of presidential power. Combined with the statistical impossibility of a 2/3 senate majority for impeachment, this is a license to grab as much power as that same court will allow.
What's kind of fascinating is the way they've introduced things like the Major Questions Doctrine (MQD), which asserted the importance (really, necessity, in their view) of Congress's explicit delegation powers, as a way to curtail agency actions. But then faced with something like this EO, they seem quite obviously faced with something that runs up against the fact the Congress gave explicit statutes for how and what they should do. As far as I'm aware, the statues creating these agencies don't explicitly give the president this power...which raises a clear MQD consistency issue for the supreme court.
It’s not fascinating in any way, it’s completely habitual for fascists to use every means at their disposal to prevent their opponents from doing anything only to ignore all roadblocks when in power.
The GOP has been ramping up their support of unitary executive theory since the 80s yet no democratic president has been able to take a piss without cries of tyranny.
The GOP has been ramping up their support of unitary executive theory since the 80s yet no democratic president has been able to take a piss without cries of tyranny.
There are three branches. Just three. If you are a federal employee, you either work for congress, the courts, or the president. A2S1 invests the president with all executive power. All of it. It doesn’t carve out exceptions for the SEC or the Federal Reserve or USAID.
If you’ve put yourself in a place where this arrangement is literally fascism, prepare to be disappointed by the courts.
If you’ve put yourself in a place where this arrangement is literally fascism, prepare to be disappointed by the courts.
However you read the constitution it's not the way courts interpret constitution now. Unitary executive branch doesn't exist for last ~135 years, and was under scrutiny before that (and with way smaller federal government).
With current supreme court nothing is sacred for sure, but overturning this and granting universal executive power into hands of president would be a disaster leading towards either authocracy or revolution. And yeah - that's all very similar to how fascism started, whether you would like to see it or not.
With current supreme court nothing is sacred for sure, but overturning this and granting universal executive power into hands of president would be a disaster leading towards either authocracy or revolution. And yeah - that's all very similar to how fascism started, whether you would like to see it or not.
Pretty hard to square this perspective with the recent Raimondo decision, no?
Is the EPA, at the direction of the sitting president, making rules about coal power plants not an example of the use of "all executive power. All of it."? Or does A2S1 carve out exceptions for the EPA, even if it doesn't for those other agencies?
Whatever you think about Chevron deference or the specific EPA case I'm alluding to, the point is: The balance of power between the executive and legislative branches is nowhere near as clear cut as your comment suggests. Congress frequently legislates the structure and responsibilities of executive agencies. Presidential administrators cannot legally change those responsibilities unilaterally.
Is the EPA, at the direction of the sitting president, making rules about coal power plants not an example of the use of "all executive power. All of it."? Or does A2S1 carve out exceptions for the EPA, even if it doesn't for those other agencies?
Whatever you think about Chevron deference or the specific EPA case I'm alluding to, the point is: The balance of power between the executive and legislative branches is nowhere near as clear cut as your comment suggests. Congress frequently legislates the structure and responsibilities of executive agencies. Presidential administrators cannot legally change those responsibilities unilaterally.
Making rules sounds awfully like legislation, which is a job for the legislature rather than the executive. Arguably, the executive can only regulate the executive, and Congress has to pass laws which apply to the populace at large.
That’s certainly not the way things have been run for a long time, but it doesn’t seem irrational to argue that’s the proper constitutional structure.
That’s certainly not the way things have been run for a long time, but it doesn’t seem irrational to argue that’s the proper constitutional structure.
The legislature is well within its rights to delegate rulemaking authority. (I recognize that non-delegation is a live debate, but I think it's a silly one.) But the executive has to make those rules within the bounds of the delegated authority.
> Making rules sounds awfully like legislation, which is a job for the legislature rather than the executive.
Good thing Congress establishes independent agencies then. Their entire point is to receive rule making delegated to them by Congress.
Good thing Congress establishes independent agencies then. Their entire point is to receive rule making delegated to them by Congress.
Article I, Section I states ‘All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives’; it says nothing about delegating those powers to independent agencies or to executive agencies. None of Congress’s enumerated powers state or imply that it may delegate its power to anyone else.
It would be pretty surprising if a law passed by Congress delegating to Charles Windsor its power to write the laws about taxes, borrowing money on the credit of the United States, regulating international and interstate commerce and so forth were constitutional.
It would be pretty surprising if a law passed by Congress delegating to Charles Windsor its power to write the laws about taxes, borrowing money on the credit of the United States, regulating international and interstate commerce and so forth were constitutional.
> None of Congress’s enumerated powers state or imply that it may delegate its power to anyone else.
That may be what you believe, and there's been a lot of debate over that, but courts have time and time again ruled that the legislature can delegate power. Maybe current SCOTUS will reverse a lot of that, but that remains to be seen.
That may be what you believe, and there's been a lot of debate over that, but courts have time and time again ruled that the legislature can delegate power. Maybe current SCOTUS will reverse a lot of that, but that remains to be seen.
It's a bit more murky and nuanced than that, though.
What is executive power? Well, it's what the constitution says it is. But a lot of things in the executive branch aren't spelled out in the constitution. A more strict interpretation of it (one that SCOTUS seems to be moving toward, at least when it's convenient to achieve conservative policy goals) is that Congress should not be delegating so much rulemaking power to the executive branch.
So let's say you're the SEC. You're an executive branch agency, but you essentially write laws. You get to write those laws because Congress delegated that power in some reasonably specific ways unique to your agency. So who do you really report to? Nominally, day to day, seems like the president. But you only exist because of an act of Congress. Congress can dissolve you tomorrow if it wants to. Congress can also give you more power and more latitude (within some limits, of course). So while you report to the president, you're accountable to Congress. That might mean that the president isn't allowed to fire your people without cause, if Congress specified so.
That's not an interference of executive power if the power you wield actually flows from the legislative branch.
What is executive power? Well, it's what the constitution says it is. But a lot of things in the executive branch aren't spelled out in the constitution. A more strict interpretation of it (one that SCOTUS seems to be moving toward, at least when it's convenient to achieve conservative policy goals) is that Congress should not be delegating so much rulemaking power to the executive branch.
So let's say you're the SEC. You're an executive branch agency, but you essentially write laws. You get to write those laws because Congress delegated that power in some reasonably specific ways unique to your agency. So who do you really report to? Nominally, day to day, seems like the president. But you only exist because of an act of Congress. Congress can dissolve you tomorrow if it wants to. Congress can also give you more power and more latitude (within some limits, of course). So while you report to the president, you're accountable to Congress. That might mean that the president isn't allowed to fire your people without cause, if Congress specified so.
That's not an interference of executive power if the power you wield actually flows from the legislative branch.
> It’s not fascinating in any way, it’s completely habitual for fascists to use…
This is a tiring way to speak to other reasonable people.
This is a tiring way to speak to other reasonable people.
yes but if the executive just pretends there is no issue does it matter
part of the supreme court hasn't exactly been known to defend the constitution in word and spirit but find excuses to reinterpret it
and worse by giving themself the right to authoritative misinterpreted law they can prevent any such cases ever appearing in front of the supreme court and/or very effectively blackmail people into not making or dismissing cases
and Trump abusing power to blackmail people to get changes in of court related proceeding (to ironically black mail someone else to force them to fall in line or a court case against them gets reopend/not dismissed) did already happen, openly in public just a few days ago
part of the supreme court hasn't exactly been known to defend the constitution in word and spirit but find excuses to reinterpret it
and worse by giving themself the right to authoritative misinterpreted law they can prevent any such cases ever appearing in front of the supreme court and/or very effectively blackmail people into not making or dismissing cases
and Trump abusing power to blackmail people to get changes in of court related proceeding (to ironically black mail someone else to force them to fall in line or a court case against them gets reopend/not dismissed) did already happen, openly in public just a few days ago
Republican Senators want this. It's not about statistics. They believe in this stupid Unitary Executive thing (aka, we should have a King).
They don’t actually believe in unitary executive theory, as can plainly be seen any time a democrat is elected president.
[deleted]
I'm curious how do we know this? I don't plainly see this it all.
I think masklinn is arguing that, if Republican senators truly believed the president should be an elected king with nigh-limitless power, then during Democrat administrations they would have been eager to approve anything the president put forward, as he was the president-king at that time.
Whereas what we saw instead was them blocking everything they could, government shutdowns etc.
Unless "Unitary Executive" means something a good deal more nuanced than the president being king, that is.
Whereas what we saw instead was them blocking everything they could, government shutdowns etc.
Unless "Unitary Executive" means something a good deal more nuanced than the president being king, that is.
I don't think that follows at all. Republicans, just like every party really, do the best given the system they are in. They don't act as if they are in the hypothetical system they would like to have, it would be totally counterproductive to their goals.
Think of it this way. I may be against paying taxes. That doesn't mean I just stop paying them. The best I can do is try to get the government to lower the taxes.
Think of it this way. I may be against paying taxes. That doesn't mean I just stop paying them. The best I can do is try to get the government to lower the taxes.
They believe in it, but they also believe that all Democrats are actually filthy cheats who stole every election and thereby inherently illegitimate.
They don't believe that about Democrats. Maybe their constituency does, thanks to propaganda, but the politicians simply just want to be in power.
They do truly believe it, but only when a Republican is the sitting president.
It was a while ago. But late last century the "line item veto" which allowed presidents to get rid of things in bills they didn't like was rejected by the courts. Oddly Reagan (R) asked for this power initially, but Clinton (D) ended up getting it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto_in_the_United_S...
"Congress granted this power to the president by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 to control "pork barrel spending", but in 1998 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the act to be unconstitutional in 6–3 decision in Clinton v. City of New York.
The court found that exercise of the line-item veto is tantamount to a unilateral amendment or repeal by the executive of only parts of statutes authorizing federal spending, and therefore violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution. Thus a federal line-item veto, at least in this particular formulation, would only be possible through a constitutional amendment. Prior to that ruling, President Clinton applied the line-item veto to the federal budget 82 times."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto_in_the_United_S...
"Congress granted this power to the president by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 to control "pork barrel spending", but in 1998 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the act to be unconstitutional in 6–3 decision in Clinton v. City of New York.
The court found that exercise of the line-item veto is tantamount to a unilateral amendment or repeal by the executive of only parts of statutes authorizing federal spending, and therefore violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution. Thus a federal line-item veto, at least in this particular formulation, would only be possible through a constitutional amendment. Prior to that ruling, President Clinton applied the line-item veto to the federal budget 82 times."
Perfect timing when he's just tweeted out that he is The King
Just because it took me a while to find the reference: The full quote on Truth Social and Twitter is "CONGESTION PRICING IS DEAD. Manhattan, and all of New York, is SAVED. LONG LIVE THE KING!"
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1140320828992...
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1140320828992...
They created the circumstances where this could happen. It's a long term project. Supreme court picks, disenfranchisement, propaganda, refusing to hold Trump accountable for his crimes.
Disbanding of both the legislature and judiciary would be on any dictator's playbook from the last N centuries. I can't imagine either of those bodies would be ok with getting shuttered but it seems they are both pushing for it. Why?
I don’t think that’s an accurate description of the decision. I think that it stated that when the President exercises core constitutional power (e.g. the pardon power, or the veto power) then the exercise itself cannot be illegal. I’m not sure if the decision of the Court left open the possibility that the conduct around the exercise of such power can be illegal. If so, then this could be a distinction without much difference: for example, issuing a pardon may not itself ever be criminal, but taking a bribe to issue a pardon is separate from issuing the pardon itself. To some extent, I think that some of this does flow from the structure of the Constitution itself, but I’m not convinced that phrasing it in terms of immunity is particularly helpful.
Then there’s a rebuttable presumption of immunity for more conduct. I don’t see that this flows from the Constitution, but perhaps it flows from judicial decisions over the past two centuries? ‘When the President does something official, he probably is immune, but maybe he’s not, and he could still be prosecuted from crimes he commits around the immune act’ doesn’t seem terribly meaningful.
It sounds a bit to me like saying that a citizen is immune from prosecution for his vote, but not for selling it or whatever. But I’m not a lawyer, and I could be wrong.
Then there’s a rebuttable presumption of immunity for more conduct. I don’t see that this flows from the Constitution, but perhaps it flows from judicial decisions over the past two centuries? ‘When the President does something official, he probably is immune, but maybe he’s not, and he could still be prosecuted from crimes he commits around the immune act’ doesn’t seem terribly meaningful.
It sounds a bit to me like saying that a citizen is immune from prosecution for his vote, but not for selling it or whatever. But I’m not a lawyer, and I could be wrong.
It 100% was written with the explicit purpose of giving Trump the power to do whatever he wants. Including ignoring the Supreme Court hilariously enough.
Anyway, the whole discussion is moot because Trump is turning America into a authoritarian state, so rules and laws and elections soon don’t matter anymore.
Anyway, the whole discussion is moot because Trump is turning America into a authoritarian state, so rules and laws and elections soon don’t matter anymore.
Well, yes, that's how the system works: a determined President can, in fact, grab as much power as the Supreme Court will allow. That's literally what the Supreme Court is there for.
The president can arguably pack the court and with his majorities nobody will stop him
If you believe the Supreme Court is an effective guardrail against tyranny then you're deeply mistaken. The only true safeguard against tyranny is the American people refusing to comply and responding with force of arms if pushed.
If you believe the Supreme Court is an effective guardrail against tyranny then you're deeply mistaken. The only true safeguard against tyranny is the American people refusing to comply and responding with force of arms if pushed.
I don't care if you're a 3%er or a John Brown Gun Club fan, this is an absurd fantasy.
ISTR that this is one of the exact excuses people wheel out when "the gun discussion" comes up: to protect the people from tyranny.
We'll see how that goes.
We'll see how that goes.
Assuming the US military remains loyal to the president... if you really think that the Proud Boys and their ilk, plus a bunch of random disorganized people with guns, have even the remotest chance of winning a war with the US military, well... I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
And if the US military doesn't remain loyal to the president, then on top of a fascist dictator seizing power, then we'll have a military coup.
And if the US military doesn't remain loyal to the president, then on top of a fascist dictator seizing power, then we'll have a military coup.
> And if the US military doesn't remain loyal to the president, then on top of a fascist dictator seizing power, then we'll have a military coup.
“Instead”, not “on top”. (I mean, unless the military installs a different fascist dictator, which is certainly not unheard of in military coups that are notionally countercoups.)
“Instead”, not “on top”. (I mean, unless the military installs a different fascist dictator, which is certainly not unheard of in military coups that are notionally countercoups.)
> if you really think that the Proud Boys and their ilk, plus a bunch of random disorganized people with guns, have even the remotest chance of winning a war with the US military, well... I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam
Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam
In Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam, the enemy was—and, critically, the US forces were not—fighting for their homeland, and the US engaged in political decisions to limit operations because of that (and, in the case of Afghanistan, got distracted and fucked off to start an war of aggression in Iraq in the middle of it).
And still won in Iraq, first against Saddam’s regime, then the post-regime pre-ISIS insurgency, and then the later fight against ISIS, so I’m not sure why Iraq is included, absolute immorality of the decision to go to war there and its cost to the war in Afghanistan aside, since those are irrelevant to the discussion here.
And still won in Iraq, first against Saddam’s regime, then the post-regime pre-ISIS insurgency, and then the later fight against ISIS, so I’m not sure why Iraq is included, absolute immorality of the decision to go to war there and its cost to the war in Afghanistan aside, since those are irrelevant to the discussion here.
Yeah nearly all the discussion here seems circular…
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see how legal immunity equates to legal authority.
If you are a government employee and Trump orders you to do something that exceeds his authority, can't you still say no? It seems like the Supreme Court only said that Trump can't get in trouble for asking. I don't think the court said that you have to answer yes.
I'm not trying to say that we're in a great position here or that immunity doesn't have some very destructive effects. But I am saying that we shouldn't act as if he has powers that the Supreme Court hasn't given him.
If you are a government employee and Trump orders you to do something that exceeds his authority, can't you still say no? It seems like the Supreme Court only said that Trump can't get in trouble for asking. I don't think the court said that you have to answer yes.
I'm not trying to say that we're in a great position here or that immunity doesn't have some very destructive effects. But I am saying that we shouldn't act as if he has powers that the Supreme Court hasn't given him.
At this point your working assumption should be that the target operating model is similar to Russia.
A competent Joe Biden would've taken that ruling, said "thank you very much" and "cleaned house" with Seal Team Six of select judges and politicians and then pardoned everyone involved.
The fact that SCOTUS wasn't even slightly concerned about that happening belies the problem: the Democrats are ineffectual by design. They knew Biden would throw his hands up citing "norms" and "institutions" as an excuse to do absolutely nothing.
SCOTUS completely invented a concept of presidential immunity out of thin air to derail the criminal prosecutions. They also deliberaly took their time. Remember when Jack Smith tried to appeal directly to SCOTUS because everyone knew it was going to end up there? Instead, SCOTUS put everything on hold for another 6 months as a delaying tactic.
Even then, the opinion is rushed and haphazard and not at all well thought out. Some in the conservative supermajority allegedly wanted to punt the issue to the next term.
The presidential immunity decision is so brazenly political. The Roberts court will go down in history for the kinds of awful decisions in the 1840s and 1850s that led up to the Civil War.
The fact that SCOTUS wasn't even slightly concerned about that happening belies the problem: the Democrats are ineffectual by design. They knew Biden would throw his hands up citing "norms" and "institutions" as an excuse to do absolutely nothing.
SCOTUS completely invented a concept of presidential immunity out of thin air to derail the criminal prosecutions. They also deliberaly took their time. Remember when Jack Smith tried to appeal directly to SCOTUS because everyone knew it was going to end up there? Instead, SCOTUS put everything on hold for another 6 months as a delaying tactic.
Even then, the opinion is rushed and haphazard and not at all well thought out. Some in the conservative supermajority allegedly wanted to punt the issue to the next term.
The presidential immunity decision is so brazenly political. The Roberts court will go down in history for the kinds of awful decisions in the 1840s and 1850s that led up to the Civil War.
> the Democrats are ineffectual by design.
The Democrats are people who believe in the rule of law, and they act like it. When pitted against people who have no qualms to win at all costs, even it means breaking the law and destroying the constitution, Democrats lose; if you value those things you can't preserve them by destroying them yourself. We are where we are because Republicans convinced themselves they deserved the power they have taken. The people who voted for them were convinced as well. That's the only failure we should be talking about right now. The Democrats, flawed as they are, did the right thing.
That said, they will not be the people to lead us out of this. They know how to fundraise, campaign, and maintain the status quo. They're not built for this, so it's time to just look for someone new rather than try to reform people who are clearly not made for this moment.
The Democrats are people who believe in the rule of law, and they act like it. When pitted against people who have no qualms to win at all costs, even it means breaking the law and destroying the constitution, Democrats lose; if you value those things you can't preserve them by destroying them yourself. We are where we are because Republicans convinced themselves they deserved the power they have taken. The people who voted for them were convinced as well. That's the only failure we should be talking about right now. The Democrats, flawed as they are, did the right thing.
That said, they will not be the people to lead us out of this. They know how to fundraise, campaign, and maintain the status quo. They're not built for this, so it's time to just look for someone new rather than try to reform people who are clearly not made for this moment.
> the Democrats are ineffectual by design
In many situations, those who have morals and scruples will be ineffectual when faced with an adversary who has none. Biden didn't "clean house" because he believes in the rule of law, and believes that if he'd done that, he should go to jail, even if he wouldn't.
Not everyone has an ethical code that only exists because they're afraid they'll go to jail if they break it. Some people just don't think it's ok to do the wrong thing.
Put another way: if you become the monster you're trying to fight, that's often not materially different from the monster winning in the first place.
Having said that, I do think that Democrats should fight a little dirtier sometimes. I think that would be possible to do without becoming that monster.
In many situations, those who have morals and scruples will be ineffectual when faced with an adversary who has none. Biden didn't "clean house" because he believes in the rule of law, and believes that if he'd done that, he should go to jail, even if he wouldn't.
Not everyone has an ethical code that only exists because they're afraid they'll go to jail if they break it. Some people just don't think it's ok to do the wrong thing.
Put another way: if you become the monster you're trying to fight, that's often not materially different from the monster winning in the first place.
Having said that, I do think that Democrats should fight a little dirtier sometimes. I think that would be possible to do without becoming that monster.
Your courts and judiciary don't have any power - he'll just write an EO to release people. Senate and Congress likewise - meaningless talking shops.
Not even that. Trump controls federal law enforcement. If Congress or a federal court says "arrest cabinet member XYZ for contempt", Trump can just say "no".
Congress does have some law enforcement personnel, but I doubt they'd be interested in getting in a standoff with the Secret Service.
Congress does have some law enforcement personnel, but I doubt they'd be interested in getting in a standoff with the Secret Service.
“Criminal use of presidential power” is a bit of an oxymoron, which is why people are getting wrapped up in knots here.
The Supreme Court said, if the Constitution authorizes the President to do it, then he can’t be criminally prosecuted. That doesn’t mean blanket immunity!
The Supreme Court said, if the Constitution authorizes the President to do it, then he can’t be criminally prosecuted. That doesn’t mean blanket immunity!
>paint a very concerning picture
Donald Trump is trying to be dictator. He has been doing all but wearing a sign around his neck saying so for a long time. Please don't act surprised. It is not the time for quotes or being shocked at his actions.
Donald Trump is trying to be dictator. He has been doing all but wearing a sign around his neck saying so for a long time. Please don't act surprised. It is not the time for quotes or being shocked at his actions.
He's literally said he wants to be a dictator.
He's saluted Kim Jong-Un's generals. He's bent the knee to Vladimir Putain He's whined that it's not fair that he doesn't have the powers that Xi Jinping does.
Growing up in the 90s and early 2000s, it was widely known that Donald Trump was a fraud and a complete clown. It will be studied for decades how many people just willingly gave up their ability to call a spade a spade and ignore reality when it comes to Donald Trump. How did people become so fucking stupid?
He's saluted Kim Jong-Un's generals. He's bent the knee to Vladimir Putain He's whined that it's not fair that he doesn't have the powers that Xi Jinping does.
Growing up in the 90s and early 2000s, it was widely known that Donald Trump was a fraud and a complete clown. It will be studied for decades how many people just willingly gave up their ability to call a spade a spade and ignore reality when it comes to Donald Trump. How did people become so fucking stupid?
It's pretty simple, working class mostly conservative white Americans have been feeling extremely disenfranchised and the right phrase is nearly "discriminated against" by the left and what were mainstream republicans. This bloc of people were used by entities foreign and domestic to wield power. Large disgruntled groups of people are really good for this. Donald Trump is the perfect symbol for this group and there are even some strange almost religious feelings towards him in a few.
>Donald Trump is the perfect symbol for this group
How a real estate & brand "billionaire" from NYC who wears orange makeup and lifts and speaks in the most basic of generalities became the rallying symbol for disenfranchised rural white working class conservatives speaks to the absolute degeneracy of our society. Awful.
How a real estate & brand "billionaire" from NYC who wears orange makeup and lifts and speaks in the most basic of generalities became the rallying symbol for disenfranchised rural white working class conservatives speaks to the absolute degeneracy of our society. Awful.
Or, from another perspective: the "disenfranchised rural white[0] working class" was so abandoned by the Democratic Party, which previously represented that class, that a reality TV start from NYC with all of his flaws came to champion their needs instead[1].
[0]: Trump got a higher share of nonwhite votes of every stripe in 2024 than he did in 2016, so it's clearly more about class than race.
[1]: https://x.com/patrickjfl/status/1854645395856482568
[0]: Trump got a higher share of nonwhite votes of every stripe in 2024 than he did in 2016, so it's clearly more about class than race.
[1]: https://x.com/patrickjfl/status/1854645395856482568
He's a cartoon character, what someone with no idea thinks their life would be like if they were a billionaire. He feels relatable, doesn't talk like other "elites" and speaks plainly. When an ordinary politician talks you have to wade through layers of BS, misdirection, and "political correctness" where when Trump talks it's an unhinged stream of consciousness but it feels very honest. At least he's full of a very different brand of crap, and people are really growing to hate how most politicians speak.
>absolute degeneracy of our society
And there it is. The people who ended up voting for Trump have been feeling increasing alienation and hatred from the rest of the country, and they finally found their political power. No amount of insulting them is going to stop it.
>absolute degeneracy of our society
And there it is. The people who ended up voting for Trump have been feeling increasing alienation and hatred from the rest of the country, and they finally found their political power. No amount of insulting them is going to stop it.
>And there it is. The people who ended up voting for Trump have been feeling increasing alienation and hatred from the rest of the country, and they finally found their political power. No amount of insulting them is going to stop it.
The people who voted for him deserve to feel alienated and hatred, because it's not like he didn't have a track record. He's already been president. He has been a grandstanding loudmouth for the better part of the last 50 years if not longer.
It's one thing to vote for an outsider. It's another thing to say "Gosh, times are tough, and Biden's not making them better. Let me vote again for Donald Trump, a guy who sucks at business and politics, who made things awful in his first term."
Donald Trump's handlers at the Heritage Foundation put out a memorandum of what they'd do if he was re-elected. Most of these things were dangerously stupid, and a majority of them would make the country's average citizen worse off economically. Surprisingly, people believed Donald Trump's words when he claimed he'd never heard of Project 2025. Unsurprisingly, his entire campaign staff was filled with people who quite literally were the ones that wrote the memorandum and plan....and then got themselves installed as agency heads or cabinet members.
Donald Trump has always stood for Donald Trump making money by any means possible, and screwing over everyone else in the process. It's quite transparent. Yet somehow even after he was already president, people somehow overlook all his traits and say "that guy stands for the average man, he's for Main Street not Wall Street, he's going to lower my bills". Folks, he's a NYC real estate dude that wears makeup. He shits in a gold toilet and has never worked a day in his life. He lied and lied and lied about COVID. He's not for Main Street or the average American citizen, not at all. Why do people not see that?
The people who voted for him deserve to feel alienated and hatred, because it's not like he didn't have a track record. He's already been president. He has been a grandstanding loudmouth for the better part of the last 50 years if not longer.
It's one thing to vote for an outsider. It's another thing to say "Gosh, times are tough, and Biden's not making them better. Let me vote again for Donald Trump, a guy who sucks at business and politics, who made things awful in his first term."
Donald Trump's handlers at the Heritage Foundation put out a memorandum of what they'd do if he was re-elected. Most of these things were dangerously stupid, and a majority of them would make the country's average citizen worse off economically. Surprisingly, people believed Donald Trump's words when he claimed he'd never heard of Project 2025. Unsurprisingly, his entire campaign staff was filled with people who quite literally were the ones that wrote the memorandum and plan....and then got themselves installed as agency heads or cabinet members.
Donald Trump has always stood for Donald Trump making money by any means possible, and screwing over everyone else in the process. It's quite transparent. Yet somehow even after he was already president, people somehow overlook all his traits and say "that guy stands for the average man, he's for Main Street not Wall Street, he's going to lower my bills". Folks, he's a NYC real estate dude that wears makeup. He shits in a gold toilet and has never worked a day in his life. He lied and lied and lied about COVID. He's not for Main Street or the average American citizen, not at all. Why do people not see that?
Whelp, the people who voted for Trump are the majority, the "how could they be so stupid" attitude really isn't how you change hearts and minds.
And these people felt hated and alienated long before Trump, and nobody really did anything to bring them back into the fold over the last 4 or 8 years.
The Republic may well fall as a direct result of your kind of attitude. Being so absolutely certain of how right you are isn't going to help you.
And these people felt hated and alienated long before Trump, and nobody really did anything to bring them back into the fold over the last 4 or 8 years.
The Republic may well fall as a direct result of your kind of attitude. Being so absolutely certain of how right you are isn't going to help you.
>And these people felt hated and alienated long before Trump, and nobody really did anything to bring them back into the fold over the last 4 or 8 years.
I see your point, but let's not pretend here - that crowd was given ample opportunity to become economically stable since the times of Obama. Example: job retraining in Coal Country. Obama rolled out the red carpet for them, offering retraining, upskilling, everything under the sun. But no, those people just wanted to work in the mines, even though everyone and their cousin knew those mining jobs were not coming back. That group clung to their old ways, and when Trump said he'd bring the jobs back, they voted for him. The jobs never came back, and they voted for him again anyway.
>The Republic may well fall as a direct result of your kind of attitude. Being so absolutely certain of how right you are isn't going to help you.
It'll fall because a bunch of people who voted for "muh economy" didn't see the error of thinking a 6-time bankrupt conman would help them. My kind of attitude? Bugger off, my kind of attitude calls a spade a spade. "This fat makeup-wearing career criminal who inherited hundreds of millions yet bankrupted 2 casinos and declared personal bankruptcy 6 times is TOTALLY THE GUY WHO IS GOING TO REINVIGORATE THE US ECONOMY" I mean, where'd your common sense go? Oh yeah, people fell for this twice now. As if plenty of evidence from the first go-round wasn't enough.
Do I blame them? Yes, I absolutely do. Do I blame Democrats for managing to snatch defeat from what should have been an easy victory? Yeah, I absolutely do.
I see your point, but let's not pretend here - that crowd was given ample opportunity to become economically stable since the times of Obama. Example: job retraining in Coal Country. Obama rolled out the red carpet for them, offering retraining, upskilling, everything under the sun. But no, those people just wanted to work in the mines, even though everyone and their cousin knew those mining jobs were not coming back. That group clung to their old ways, and when Trump said he'd bring the jobs back, they voted for him. The jobs never came back, and they voted for him again anyway.
>The Republic may well fall as a direct result of your kind of attitude. Being so absolutely certain of how right you are isn't going to help you.
It'll fall because a bunch of people who voted for "muh economy" didn't see the error of thinking a 6-time bankrupt conman would help them. My kind of attitude? Bugger off, my kind of attitude calls a spade a spade. "This fat makeup-wearing career criminal who inherited hundreds of millions yet bankrupted 2 casinos and declared personal bankruptcy 6 times is TOTALLY THE GUY WHO IS GOING TO REINVIGORATE THE US ECONOMY" I mean, where'd your common sense go? Oh yeah, people fell for this twice now. As if plenty of evidence from the first go-round wasn't enough.
Do I blame them? Yes, I absolutely do. Do I blame Democrats for managing to snatch defeat from what should have been an easy victory? Yeah, I absolutely do.
> No President is above the law, nor does the President "interpret" the law
On paper, but not in practice, sadly.
The meaning of the Constitution has been bent to serve Trump's will. He violated the law constantly during his first term, was not held accountable for the electoral violations or coup, and is now violating the law again. He's gotten away with it every single time.
I'm sorry to say this. You are describing an America that no longer exists. We live in a new country with new rules that we don't quite understand yet.
On paper, but not in practice, sadly.
The meaning of the Constitution has been bent to serve Trump's will. He violated the law constantly during his first term, was not held accountable for the electoral violations or coup, and is now violating the law again. He's gotten away with it every single time.
I'm sorry to say this. You are describing an America that no longer exists. We live in a new country with new rules that we don't quite understand yet.
I mean, he's been using dictator language for years now. This is certainly concerning, but it's nothing new.
Just remember, none of this was a surprise. It was advertised ie Project 2025. It is the culmination of the 50+ year Republican Project.
And yet we had no opposition to it. The Biden administration and Kamala Harris were more interested in defending and providing material support for war crimes than stopping any of this.
The Democratic Party is more comfortable with Trump as a dictator than an actual progressive getting in power. If the Democrats opposed and sabotaged Republicans half as well as they did Bernie Sanders, we would be in a very different place.
It’s quite literally “we’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas.” They throw their hands up and surrender. You want a playbook? Look at what the Republicans did at any point from 2010 to 2016 and just do any of that.
And yet we had no opposition to it. The Biden administration and Kamala Harris were more interested in defending and providing material support for war crimes than stopping any of this.
The Democratic Party is more comfortable with Trump as a dictator than an actual progressive getting in power. If the Democrats opposed and sabotaged Republicans half as well as they did Bernie Sanders, we would be in a very different place.
It’s quite literally “we’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas.” They throw their hands up and surrender. You want a playbook? Look at what the Republicans did at any point from 2010 to 2016 and just do any of that.
I think it was definitely bad that Joe held on so long before letting Kamala run but incumbents lost globally[0], not just here in the US. People aren't happy with the effects COVID had, which is valid, but misplaced the blame which is how we got here.
[0]: https://apnews.com/article/global-elections-2024-incumbents-...
[0]: https://apnews.com/article/global-elections-2024-incumbents-...
It is not just a case of people misplacing the blame. There was massive amount of lying and demonization of anyone not conservative right going on. There was a lot of fearmongering and hate ... all enabled by "moderates".
The movements like these did not just happened because people were unhappy. They are result of long political project that was enabled, excused and defended for years.
The movements like these did not just happened because people were unhappy. They are result of long political project that was enabled, excused and defended for years.
It's definitely bad that Democrats could not come up with a single candidate, and a strategy for that candidate, but held on to Biden and then presented Kamala as a saviour when she was a meh candidate at best
They need to hold an actual primary.
Who are the "Democrats" that you are talking about? No one held on to Joe Biden, he was president and decided he was going to run for re-election. No one seriously ran against him because people generally don't try to run against a sitting president in a primary and if they had they would have almost certainly lost in a landslide. Biden didn't need anyone's permission to run, and no one could have stopped him from running. Then he dropped out and endorsed Harris no credible person attempted to run against her. There is no secret party leadership who decides on the candidate that we can now blame, and besides some of the efforts to convince Biden to drop out everything was done very publicly.
> Who are the "Democrats" that you are talking about?
...
> No one seriously ran against him
> Then he dropped out and endorsed Harris no credible person attempted to run against her.
...
> No one seriously ran against him
> Then he dropped out and endorsed Harris no credible person attempted to run against her.
No. Since 2016, leftist democrats have promised that if only the democratic party moves far left enough, they will unlock some kind of secret progressive majority. This has been repudiated at every turn, most resoundingly in the last presidential election. The demographics that the leftist democrats had appointed themselves the saviors of went over to Trump, along with the tech industry which had formerly been a huge source of monetary and intellectual capital for the democrats.
Unfortunately, the democratic party seems to be unable to make the necessary adjustment and return to the winning formula of the Obama years because the political hobbyists and professionals that make up the core of the party have purity-tested out anyone with more mainstream views. If they aren't careful, they will end up as a party representing only university HR administrators.
Unfortunately, the democratic party seems to be unable to make the necessary adjustment and return to the winning formula of the Obama years because the political hobbyists and professionals that make up the core of the party have purity-tested out anyone with more mainstream views. If they aren't careful, they will end up as a party representing only university HR administrators.
Perhaps the winning formula of the Obama years was the absence of rampant social media use and the spread of propaganda / misinformation at the time. Not saying those things did not exist - but they did not have the ability to spread like wildfire compared to today.
You may not have noticed it, but intel and counterintelligence agencies used Twitter heavily in the Obama era. Arguably, Obama's presidency was the one that put the nail in the coffin of trusting intelligence agency reports over twitter, but I think you could make a case it started with Reagan and cable news.
Basically, our elected representatives picked social media news sources as preferred trusted sources, and the groups interested in getting information and misinformation to them followed suit.
Basically, our elected representatives picked social media news sources as preferred trusted sources, and the groups interested in getting information and misinformation to them followed suit.
Eh agree in part, disagree in part. In 2016 a bunch of people who would otherwise not be interested in politics were interested in two politicians - Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. The Democratic party leadership made a concerted effort to drown Sanders' economic populism before it could succeed. That sent a message that it had no place in the party, killing their ability to grow the base, and giving MAGA (via the Bannon faction) control of economic populist messaging. Economic populists left the Democratic party, leaving them to rely on elites and cultural leftists to carry the party messaging, which resulted in what you described. And most of what you described only exists in a Fox News fever dream, but the Democrats opened the door right up for it to happen.
> And most of what you described only exists in a Fox News fever dream
It also exists in the 2024 election results
It also exists in the 2024 election results
I never said the election was illegitimate, just that most of the fears of right wing voters were.
Democratic party did not moved left, not even close to it. Stop blaming left who holds no power for what right does.
Democratic party systematically promotes centrists and measured politicians.
Democratic party systematically promotes centrists and measured politicians.
> The Democratic Party is more comfortable with Trump as a dictator than an actual progressive getting in power. If the Democrats opposed and sabotaged Republicans half as well as they did Bernie Sanders, we would be in a very different place.
It's been like this for decades, and is why I haven't voted for a democatic party candidate for president in that time. Living in California, it doesn't even matter, all of the electoral votes go to the dems anyway.
This is all a consequence of the US still governing with an organization that was designed in 1776. After WWII european contries reorged their governments as well as their physical infrastructure. The wswitched to propotional representation with parlamentary style governments. It's not perfect, but it's a heck of a lot closer than what we have in the US.
With presidenatial electrions decided by 7 states, and by a small minority of the voters in those states, something like 1% of the US population is deciding the outcome.
Neither dems nor reps want to change this. There is no real hope for actual democracy in the US...
It's been like this for decades, and is why I haven't voted for a democatic party candidate for president in that time. Living in California, it doesn't even matter, all of the electoral votes go to the dems anyway.
This is all a consequence of the US still governing with an organization that was designed in 1776. After WWII european contries reorged their governments as well as their physical infrastructure. The wswitched to propotional representation with parlamentary style governments. It's not perfect, but it's a heck of a lot closer than what we have in the US.
With presidenatial electrions decided by 7 states, and by a small minority of the voters in those states, something like 1% of the US population is deciding the outcome.
Neither dems nor reps want to change this. There is no real hope for actual democracy in the US...
nailer(2)
The Dems were more afraid of the Israel lobby than they were of an actual Nazi movement seizing power over the country. Money has totally erased any semblance of morality from governance in the United States.
jokoon(6)
This EO says nothing about the Judicial branch and presents a perfectly reasonable policy statement about how legal decisions and interpretation should be made within the executive branch. What specific language in this EO do you have a problem with?
I’m no fan of Trump, but this pattern of people hallucinating that Trump said something he didn’t and then freaking out about their nonexistent hallucination, is getting very tiresome.
I’m no fan of Trump, but this pattern of people hallucinating that Trump said something he didn’t and then freaking out about their nonexistent hallucination, is getting very tiresome.
Consider this hypothetical: a federal judge rules against the Trump administration's firing of the inspectors general and must offer the fired employees their positions back. The Attorney General says the judge overstepped his constitutional power and calls the ruling invalid. What should the person who would've rehired the employees do?
Continue that hypothetical further: the case makes its way to the Supreme Court, who agrees with the federal judge. The executive branch continues to ignore the order. The Attorney General is held in contempt of court and fined a large amount of money. Who's going to collect it? Any executive branch employee trying to carry out that fine would be violating this executive order, and be dismissed. So the fine would never happen.
Considering the president and vice president's recent disdain for judicial rulings against them, this may happen.
Continue that hypothetical further: the case makes its way to the Supreme Court, who agrees with the federal judge. The executive branch continues to ignore the order. The Attorney General is held in contempt of court and fined a large amount of money. Who's going to collect it? Any executive branch employee trying to carry out that fine would be violating this executive order, and be dismissed. So the fine would never happen.
Considering the president and vice president's recent disdain for judicial rulings against them, this may happen.
What’s the solution you have in mind? Anyone in the Executive branch can interpret the law for themselves and disobey an order if they believe they have a legal basis to do so?
That would be completely paralyzing.
That would be completely paralyzing.
Yes.
It would be completely paralyzing were the executive largely staffed with those that wanted to paralyze it. Usually that's not the case.
I don't think that'd be case unless the orders were completely outrageous, in which case, yes, we absolutely want them disobeyed until adjudication could happen.
It would be completely paralyzing were the executive largely staffed with those that wanted to paralyze it. Usually that's not the case.
I don't think that'd be case unless the orders were completely outrageous, in which case, yes, we absolutely want them disobeyed until adjudication could happen.
It might well be the case that, today, the executive branch (which includes essentially the entirety of what most people consider “the federal government”) is largely staffed by those who want to paralyze it.
You can certainly say that these people are right to try to resist the changes Trump is trying to make. But, like it or not, Trump is the democratically elected President, and it’s quite a challenge to come up with a conceptual model of American government that prevents him from exercising his constitutional authority over the Executive branch.
You can certainly say that these people are right to try to resist the changes Trump is trying to make. But, like it or not, Trump is the democratically elected President, and it’s quite a challenge to come up with a conceptual model of American government that prevents him from exercising his constitutional authority over the Executive branch.
Perhaps. But I think we can agree that this is indeed not the usual case.
The majority of what he's doing is "merely" unheard of norm violations. But much of the authority he's exercising do not clearly appear to be legal, or constitutional. There are tendentious arguments for much of it being legal, of course, but they're not slam-dunks -- precisely because they would put the entire the executive branch effectively above any law or constraint.
In any other organization it would be clear that even when the head gives you an illegal or an ultra-vires orders, you're not supposed to actually follow them.
The majority of what he's doing is "merely" unheard of norm violations. But much of the authority he's exercising do not clearly appear to be legal, or constitutional. There are tendentious arguments for much of it being legal, of course, but they're not slam-dunks -- precisely because they would put the entire the executive branch effectively above any law or constraint.
In any other organization it would be clear that even when the head gives you an illegal or an ultra-vires orders, you're not supposed to actually follow them.
That is why federal workers and the military swear an oath to the constitution of the united states.
I'm not sure what hallucinations you're talking about, given that this whole catastrophe has been one big "I told you so" thus far. By a bit of inductive reasoning we can predict that it will continue. (And it's not like it requires any special predictive abilities given that they told us during the campaign what they were and are planning to do.)
https://archive.is/g6ElI
“So, through constitutional means?” the presiding judge asked.
“Jawohl!” Hitler replied.
“So, through constitutional means?” the presiding judge asked.
“Jawohl!” Hitler replied.
"Hitler opened the meeting by boasting that millions of Germans had welcomed his chancellorship with “jubilation,” then outlined his plans for expunging key government officials and filling their positions with loyalists. At this point he turned to his main agenda item: the empowering law that, he argued, would give him the time (four years, according to the stipulations laid out in the draft of the law) and the authority necessary to make good on his campaign promises to revive the economy, reduce unemployment, increase military spending, withdraw from international treaty obligations, purge the country of foreigners he claimed were “poisoning” the blood of the nation, and exact revenge on political opponents. “Heads will roll in the sand,” Hitler had vowed at one rally."
Sounds way too familiar.
Sounds way too familiar.
Good share, thanks.
Imagine finding absolutely no issue with an EO that uses phrases like “so-called independent regulatory agencies”.
This is what Germans must have felt like in 1933.
This is what Germans must have felt like in 1933.
What branch of government do these independent agencies exist in, and where is that defined in the Constitution?
Try reading my comment again.
What is it that you think this EO says? The first Trump administration went all the way to the Supreme Court to establish that he could coerce ALJs. There are already extensive internal checks on FTC, SEC, and FCC --- places where to exercise independent power those agencies still need the cooperation of DOJ.
There's a clear norms violation happening here, but I don't see the power grab everybody else is seeing. These are powers the Presidency already had.
There's a clear norms violation happening here, but I don't see the power grab everybody else is seeing. These are powers the Presidency already had.
> These are powers the Presidency already had.
Then what, in your mind, is the purpose of this EO?
Then what, in your mind, is the purpose of this EO?
To serve notice to the FCC, FTC, SEC, and CFTC that Trump intends to override their internal legal interpretations.
But that ... is a power grab...
No, the President already has that power. The norm of the previous institutions was, largely, to let the agencies do their thing. This administration is not going to do that.
This was a live question in Trump's last administration, but I don't think it is anymore after cases like Lucia?
This was a live question in Trump's last administration, but I don't think it is anymore after cases like Lucia?
You are dying on the hill of a pedantic point. A president also has the power to declare an emergency and deploy the military domestically. Doing so would still be a power grab. The term just doesn't have the precise narrow definition you seem to be arguing for. Its colloquial understanding encompasses the use of heretofore unused powers.
Yes, because deploying the military domestically and overriding an FTC ALJ's legal interpretation are clearly comparable.
They are comparable in that they are both an increasing exercise of power wrt what had been previously done.
I concur with GP; you are arriving at the conclusion through your own logic but somehow not seeing the conclusion. See intermerda's point below.
I concur with GP; you are arriving at the conclusion through your own logic but somehow not seeing the conclusion. See intermerda's point below.
This is one of these situations where my immediate instinct is to clarify my own politics, but then I catch myself and conclude that my comments should stand on their own whether or not you feel like you have a partisan affinity to me. Mostly: this is why the threads on these stories are just wretched. You could say I'm wrong and nerd your way out to whether that's the case --- that's what this site is for --- but instead we're all just reflexively venting emotions.
You don't need to clarify anything. It's simple. Everyone here agrees with your logic, your comments do stand on their own. The point of debate is "but I don't see the power grab everybody else is seeing". Which is fine if you don't see it, that's just how you see it. Others see it differently.
[deleted]
You really can't see how they are both powers that presidents (arguably) technically have but which they do not execute? And that a president actually exercising such a power is thus a power grab?
Nothing in my comment is comparing them or suggesting they are comparable.
Nothing in my comment is comparing them or suggesting they are comparable.
Great analysis. By your logic you don’t think that the Enabling Act of 1933 was a power grab, correct?
The terrifying thin i learned recently is that norms are how laws work.
This i learned from a discussion between a magistrate and legal scholar.
This means that a norm violation, practically speaking, is a law violation. Which i guess is a crime. But that has to go to the courts to be judged.
This i learned from a discussion between a magistrate and legal scholar.
This means that a norm violation, practically speaking, is a law violation. Which i guess is a crime. But that has to go to the courts to be judged.
Uncommon tptacek L. "extensive internal checks" that's laughable given what's been going on lately with the executive overreach.
You misunderstand me. I'm not saying those internal checks are a good thing; I mean that the President already has extensive mechanisms to control what these agencies do.
He seems to be optimizing and polishing his ability to do so, which is very dangerous even if technically the reach is the same.
nor does the President "interpret" the law; that is the domain of the Judiciary.
That is incorrect, the president’s responsibility is to execute the laws of the United States. In order to execute a law, one must interpret it.
The exclusive domain of the judiciary is the power to adjudicate cases. In order to adjudicate a case involving a law, one must also interpret.
That is incorrect, the president’s responsibility is to execute the laws of the United States. In order to execute a law, one must interpret it.
The exclusive domain of the judiciary is the power to adjudicate cases. In order to adjudicate a case involving a law, one must also interpret.
> In order to execute a law, one must interpret it.
This isn't true.
> The exclusive domain of the judiciary is the power to adjudicate cases. In order to adjudicate a case involving a law, one must also interpret.
This is actually true.
This isn't true.
> The exclusive domain of the judiciary is the power to adjudicate cases. In order to adjudicate a case involving a law, one must also interpret.
This is actually true.
> In order to execute a law, one must interpret it.
I mean, yes, but in a non-judicial sense. The judiciary has the constitutionally assigned duty to give binding interpretations in the course of adjudicating cases.
I mean, yes, but in a non-judicial sense. The judiciary has the constitutionally assigned duty to give binding interpretations in the course of adjudicating cases.
More firings of those who refuse to break the law...
From a person who watched a single man taking over a whole country over, US is going down the same path.
Is anyone still doubting that what's happening is the actual death of American Democracy? Anyone still willing to argue that this is about freedom and cutting waste?
I would argue that this is not the end of your country's democracy and that in 2028 a new president will be elected.
You'd disagree, I trust?
You'd disagree, I trust?
What's your argument?
I would argue that this is not the end of your country's democracy and that in 2028 a new president will be elected.
You'll have a new president in 2028, be it Vance, Shapiro, or Oprah Winfrey. Either way, it won't be DJT.
You'll have a new president in 2028, be it Vance, Shapiro, or Oprah Winfrey. Either way, it won't be DJT.
I am pretty sure the US will have elections in 2028. But Trump was almost successful in overturning the 2020 election.
Now, with additional concentration of power, that increases the possibility of a successful overturning (in favor of a new conservative candidate), or simply a biased election.
Dictatorships often have elections and are supposedly democratic. The question is whether those elections reflect the genuine, informed self-interest of the people.
Now, with additional concentration of power, that increases the possibility of a successful overturning (in favor of a new conservative candidate), or simply a biased election.
Dictatorships often have elections and are supposedly democratic. The question is whether those elections reflect the genuine, informed self-interest of the people.
The difference is that in most dictatorships that have "elections", the elections are run by the central government. In the US, the states run the elections. Sure, the US federal government has some levers and influence, but I think our elections are less susceptible to presidential tampering due to their decentralized nature.
Being decentralized helps, but there's still only a few voting machine vendors, still nationalized media, and nobody is checking state ID of the protestors at state elections.
And US elections have been very tight, and the electoral college means that only a few states being controlled is enough.
We also lack an apparatus to overturn a fraudulent election. Even if a judge rules that an election was fraudulent, that's not the same as certifying another vote total nor can it physically remove someone from office.
And US elections have been very tight, and the electoral college means that only a few states being controlled is enough.
We also lack an apparatus to overturn a fraudulent election. Even if a judge rules that an election was fraudulent, that's not the same as certifying another vote total nor can it physically remove someone from office.
A new president, sure. But an opponent? We'll see I guess.
Remember when Trump said "we wouldn't have to vote ever again"? That was 3 months ago, so maybe your memory doesn't go that far.
Remember when Trump said "we wouldn't have to vote ever again"? That was 3 months ago, so maybe your memory doesn't go that far.
I do remember, obviously. Those kind of tired jabs are better suited for /r/politics, I'm sure you'll be right at home there :)
That said, I also remember when Trump said he'd build a wall and that Mexico would pay for it. A remarkable amount of what Trump says isn't true, I think everyone's in agreement on that.
If the country is happy with the state of affairs in 2028 then I expect you'll have JD Vance as your president. If not, maybe Newsom, Buttigieg (my hope), or Shapiro. Either way, if you truly think that 2024 was the last election Americans will vote in, respectfully, I think you're a little bit deluded.
That said, I also remember when Trump said he'd build a wall and that Mexico would pay for it. A remarkable amount of what Trump says isn't true, I think everyone's in agreement on that.
If the country is happy with the state of affairs in 2028 then I expect you'll have JD Vance as your president. If not, maybe Newsom, Buttigieg (my hope), or Shapiro. Either way, if you truly think that 2024 was the last election Americans will vote in, respectfully, I think you're a little bit deluded.
If your only insurance that Trump and his party will not attempt to illegally hold onto power one way or another is that they constantly lie and may have lied about doing that too, it provides me with little confidence.
You fall in the common liberal trap of putting too much faith in the strength of our institutions and democracy. The president is already quite literally above the law, Congress remains passive in the face of obvious unconstitutional acts and the supreme court is on board with it all. Why would they acknowledge the results of a losing election? If it wasn't for the (relative) moral integrity of Mike Pence last time, who knows what would have happened.
And if we do switch to democrats, then cool, I'll be happy to eat my hat and give you my five mea culpas. In the meantime, please don't shoot down any worry about the current distressing concentration of power :)
You fall in the common liberal trap of putting too much faith in the strength of our institutions and democracy. The president is already quite literally above the law, Congress remains passive in the face of obvious unconstitutional acts and the supreme court is on board with it all. Why would they acknowledge the results of a losing election? If it wasn't for the (relative) moral integrity of Mike Pence last time, who knows what would have happened.
And if we do switch to democrats, then cool, I'll be happy to eat my hat and give you my five mea culpas. In the meantime, please don't shoot down any worry about the current distressing concentration of power :)
I think a lot more American need to read the Constitution.
The reading levels for the average american are not fit for that really.
A lot more Americans need to read beyond the Constitution and read case law.
As Americans that believe in the Republic, what exactly are we supposed to do about this? Should we continue to implore congress to take action against this lawless behavior?
I called both my senators' offices yesterday, because I still haven't gotten a response to my emails from a few weeks ago. Still waiting to hear back.
I also told them that working on legislation for protecting George C Marshall's house, and protecting bourbon, are not valuable uses of their time given the destruction currently being waged on the US Government.
I also told them that working on legislation for protecting George C Marshall's house, and protecting bourbon, are not valuable uses of their time given the destruction currently being waged on the US Government.
I think that the most effective way to get change would be if the economy tanked, that's the one thing the electorate seems to be motivated by. A general strike would be one way to do that, but I doubt that one could be organized on any meaningful scale. I'd love to be wrong about that.
I'm trying to restrict my spending as much as possible. No new car, no vacation (or at least nothing big), limiting eating out, etc. I'm cutting back on as many unnecessary expenses as I can, and being mindful of what businesses I do spend my money on.
I'm trying to restrict my spending as much as possible. No new car, no vacation (or at least nothing big), limiting eating out, etc. I'm cutting back on as many unnecessary expenses as I can, and being mindful of what businesses I do spend my money on.
I’m gonna be straight with you. I used to think this way — that living small was a form of protest against the ills of society. But life is too short. For many of us, that cardiac arrest, car accident, or pandemic-related terminal illness is right around the corner. Don’t say no to things that bring meaning, joy, purpose, and expansion to your life. You only have one life to live.
I think he’s talking about weathering an economic disaster, not a life philosophy.
First, don't listen to the "we're so f*cked" posts on reddit. Only actions lead to results.
If you are a Republican but don't approve of how the GOP majority has basically rolled over and abdicated its duty as a check on the president, remind your congresspeople that they owe loyalty to their constituents, not to other politicians. Taxpayers pay their salaries.
The Democratic party is also in desperate need of repairs if you are interested in direct political action. They have been self-destructing over the past couple of years, plagued by infighting, deer-in-the-headlights paralysis, political tone-deafness, and incompetence in messaging.
In addition, the increasingly authoritarian shift by the Federalist society ought to make room for a new counterpart promoting the rule of law. IANAL but have always wondered why the Federalist society had no similarly prominent opposing organization.
If you are a Republican but don't approve of how the GOP majority has basically rolled over and abdicated its duty as a check on the president, remind your congresspeople that they owe loyalty to their constituents, not to other politicians. Taxpayers pay their salaries.
The Democratic party is also in desperate need of repairs if you are interested in direct political action. They have been self-destructing over the past couple of years, plagued by infighting, deer-in-the-headlights paralysis, political tone-deafness, and incompetence in messaging.
In addition, the increasingly authoritarian shift by the Federalist society ought to make room for a new counterpart promoting the rule of law. IANAL but have always wondered why the Federalist society had no similarly prominent opposing organization.
I am furious at the Democratic Party for bringing this about. They are the only organization capable of losing to this guy TWICE. With everything at stake, they actually thought it was a good idea to put up an unpopular president who had dementia, and tried to sneak him past the electorate like this is Weekend at Bernie’s 3. Then when that idea collapses, they just give it to the default next person in line. This should have been an easy win.
They got us here. The party needs to be gutted.
They got us here. The party needs to be gutted.
I am furious at the gutless Republican Party for making this happen. While different choices should have been made by Democrats, blaming them is not helping the situation. The Republicans did this, their media and propaganda apparatus created this disaster, they own this completely. If we lose our republic permanently, I hold each and every Republican voter personally responsible.
The current guy in power has just as many cognitive issues, but it is a few years younger, is louder and doesn't have a stutter. That is, apparently, enough.
Democrats did screw up by not allowing the people to choose the candidate. They also screwed up again by not preemptively creating safeguards in case Trump won, and by not strengthening the elections. Too many ballots were thrown out.
Now they are further enabling this by basically displaying no opposition.
Democrats did screw up by not allowing the people to choose the candidate. They also screwed up again by not preemptively creating safeguards in case Trump won, and by not strengthening the elections. Too many ballots were thrown out.
Now they are further enabling this by basically displaying no opposition.
I will join your party.
> As Americans that believe in the Republic, what exactly are we supposed to do about this?
If you are in a red state/district, first step would be to contact your elected federal rep(s) and tell them that you're displeased.
Use language like "Trump was elected to correct Biden's overreach, but he's now overreaching in a much worse way." Put it in language where you frame things like a 'Constitutionalist' and 'limited government'. The stereotypical small-government, Originalist GOPer.
If you come off sounding like a Democrat they'll probably ignore you, but if the (so-called) 'grass roots' MAGA folks are thought to be upset then you'll probably get more traction.
Or you'll just be ignored regardless.
If you are in a red state/district, first step would be to contact your elected federal rep(s) and tell them that you're displeased.
Use language like "Trump was elected to correct Biden's overreach, but he's now overreaching in a much worse way." Put it in language where you frame things like a 'Constitutionalist' and 'limited government'. The stereotypical small-government, Originalist GOPer.
If you come off sounding like a Democrat they'll probably ignore you, but if the (so-called) 'grass roots' MAGA folks are thought to be upset then you'll probably get more traction.
Or you'll just be ignored regardless.
Where are the mass protests? Are there even any people in the streets?
They're happening. And they're not getting much media coverage. It may be that we're at the point where this isn't an effective tactic.
I'll assume you weren't there on Monday then? It was even a day off for a lot of people.
There is no social cohesion or solidarity in the US, that's the biggest problem
In France if they'd raise the price of baguettes by 10% you'd have strikes from teachers, public transportation drivers, dock workers, train drivers, doctors, trash truck drivers, &c. all at once, after a week it would be complete chaos and the government would have no choice but to negotiate
In the US everyone is playing their little game on their side, decades of free for all capitalism at work
In France if they'd raise the price of baguettes by 10% you'd have strikes from teachers, public transportation drivers, dock workers, train drivers, doctors, trash truck drivers, &c. all at once, after a week it would be complete chaos and the government would have no choice but to negotiate
In the US everyone is playing their little game on their side, decades of free for all capitalism at work
> In France if they'd raise the price of baguettes by 10%...
That was an unexpectedly good turnaround vs the first statement. Damn, I was not expecting to have such a hard laugh.
You should also add "social" media to your picture. I think that has ravaged whatever was left of social cohesion over here.
That was an unexpectedly good turnaround vs the first statement. Damn, I was not expecting to have such a hard laugh.
You should also add "social" media to your picture. I think that has ravaged whatever was left of social cohesion over here.
Honestly, I donate enough money to politicians to make them stand up and take notice when I email or call them and share my thoughts, which leads me to the conclusion that people in the middle and lower class are going to need to find ways to pool money in such a way that they can change their party politics. It's not that all politicians are completely motivated by money, but IMO you unfortunately have to aim at the lowest common denominator.
You can only donate $3500 to any politician. (legally, if you do something illegal and are not caught...). There are complex limits notice when you say something. (for a small city that limit will make them listen, but nothing national or even a large city)
What you can do is get out votes. People knocking on doors is still one of the largest drivers of votes so if you organize those systems they will listen to you.
What you can do is get out votes. People knocking on doors is still one of the largest drivers of votes so if you organize those systems they will listen to you.
I donate to the party, and I donate at the individual limit. At that level they still care because people who donate at that level are connected with other people who donate at that level, and those people tend to reach out and coordinate. Periodically I get emails from other donors who ask me to reach out to such and such a person, a candidate or a party rep, and encourage that they take a look at X issue through a particular perspective.
I think more people would benefit from forming Super PACs and using that as leverage in pushing political change with parties.
I think more people would benefit from forming Super PACs and using that as leverage in pushing political change with parties.
I am not at all familiar with the US system. How come there is a $3500 donation limit to politicians, but the tech billionaires have donated hundreds of millions to the inauguration fund?
The inauguration fund is not used to get someone elected. Different accounts with different rules.
Miriam Adelson donates 10 million to Trump before you get up in the morning, every day.
In my personal life, I have resolved not to be silent if confronted with a pro-Trump opinion being voiced. To state unequivocally and without needing to elaborate that what is occurring is something un-American and goes beyond partisan differences, that Trump and his lieutenants are destroying our Federal government for a generation or more while permanently damaging our place among democracies in the world. That the people who voted for him are making America a worse and weaker country for their children.
I'm going to write essays to those I care about and also coordinate action plans with like minded individuals to be ready for scenarios of neo-nazi rallies or certain extreme behaviors, should they occur in my city.
I'm debating protesting solo with signs along our roads; someone did that recently in my city and said they had to flee because Trump supporters surrounded him and threatened him. But it needs done.
I'm going to write essays to those I care about and also coordinate action plans with like minded individuals to be ready for scenarios of neo-nazi rallies or certain extreme behaviors, should they occur in my city.
I'm debating protesting solo with signs along our roads; someone did that recently in my city and said they had to flee because Trump supporters surrounded him and threatened him. But it needs done.
You should probably stop believing. The fiction of government checks and balances brought you here.
<sarcasm> Maybe we should try to stop believing in money next and see where that gets our experiment in civilization. </sarcasm> All of this 'believing in ideas' is an experiment that requires years of indoctrination. It is extremely dangerous to play with the jenga game of removing core beliefs.
The actual answer here is to exercise actual power.
Oligarchs are always greatly outnumbered.
The only thing that is genuinely effective is mass movement. A coalition of labor unions could shut down all of Elon and Trumps businesses in hours. Block the entrances to the factories. General strikes, boycotts, that kind of thing. It’s not actually that complicated.
Instead the modern Democratic Party is in love with appeals to the referees. They think that if they can just convince some court or The NY Times editorial board or a 75 year old former republican special prosecutor they’ll win.
As we have seen that approach is a total and complete failure.
If someone in opposition was able to generate mass collective action however the change would be swift. Nobody is really trying that though.
Oligarchs are always greatly outnumbered.
The only thing that is genuinely effective is mass movement. A coalition of labor unions could shut down all of Elon and Trumps businesses in hours. Block the entrances to the factories. General strikes, boycotts, that kind of thing. It’s not actually that complicated.
Instead the modern Democratic Party is in love with appeals to the referees. They think that if they can just convince some court or The NY Times editorial board or a 75 year old former republican special prosecutor they’ll win.
As we have seen that approach is a total and complete failure.
If someone in opposition was able to generate mass collective action however the change would be swift. Nobody is really trying that though.
The modern Dem party, is sadly boring and correct.
I think they need to split their approach into two.
One for to keep Their base energized.
One to use the system and protect itself. The courts, the local elections.
What is being taken out are the systems that run the country. The dems have to be the one to defend it.
But frankly, I think the battleground is a media battleground.
I think they need to split their approach into two.
One for to keep Their base energized.
One to use the system and protect itself. The courts, the local elections.
What is being taken out are the systems that run the country. The dems have to be the one to defend it.
But frankly, I think the battleground is a media battleground.
What the modern Democratic Party knows, but understandably doesn’t go around trumpeting, is that they cannot organize mass collective action because there’s not enough people on their side. You talk about “a coalition of labor unions”, but even union members barely lean Democratic these days. There’s very few groups outside of the Democratic Party infrastructure which are polarized enough to take a side.
Dems put all their energy into trying to win over the 1% of people who make up 75% of internet drama.
There are absolutely enough people on "their side" in the sense that there are plenty of people on the side of working people, way more than enough.
The problem is the actual leadership of the Democratic Party isn't on the side of working people at all, and is actually actively hostile to those in favor of classic labor policies.
Don't get me wrong the other side is absolutely not on the side of working people either, that's more than apparent.
The entire dynamic we're seeing right now is a battle between two competing groups of elites. More on that concept here: https://www.compactmag.com/article/doge-as-class-war/
But with those caveats out of the way, a bona-fide labor movement could make short work of all this bullshit. Unfortunately the purpose of the modern Democratic Party appears to be to occupy the place in our system where a labor party is supposed to reside.
The problem is the actual leadership of the Democratic Party isn't on the side of working people at all, and is actually actively hostile to those in favor of classic labor policies.
Don't get me wrong the other side is absolutely not on the side of working people either, that's more than apparent.
The entire dynamic we're seeing right now is a battle between two competing groups of elites. More on that concept here: https://www.compactmag.com/article/doge-as-class-war/
But with those caveats out of the way, a bona-fide labor movement could make short work of all this bullshit. Unfortunately the purpose of the modern Democratic Party appears to be to occupy the place in our system where a labor party is supposed to reside.
I agree with a lot of what this article has to say, and it's true that the politics of the US would be quite different if one of the major parties were a bona fide labor movement. But they're not, and I worry that the label of "elites" makes it harder to see why they're not. It's genuinely challenging - although I agree sometimes necessary! - to explain to someone who's really fired up about racial justice or climate change that they're not representative of the public and their concerns need to take a back seat to kitchen table issues.
It's also not obvious to me that a bona fide labor movement would take a particularly strong stance on an executive order curtailing independent agencies. Being invested in the details of how paper-pushing agencies are structured is a very elite concern.
It's also not obvious to me that a bona fide labor movement would take a particularly strong stance on an executive order curtailing independent agencies. Being invested in the details of how paper-pushing agencies are structured is a very elite concern.
> to explain to someone who's really fired up about racial justice or climate change that they're not representative of the public
To some extent yes. But also those issues have big implications for working people. It's possible to talk about them in a way that inspires and builds a movement, or in a way that makes people feel stupid and excluded from the conversation. Often they choose the latter.
> It's also not obvious to me that a bona fide labor movement would take a particularly strong stance on an executive order curtailing independent agencies
It should be absolutely obvious why the labor movement might be opposed to what is literally the largest layoff in American history.
To some extent yes. But also those issues have big implications for working people. It's possible to talk about them in a way that inspires and builds a movement, or in a way that makes people feel stupid and excluded from the conversation. Often they choose the latter.
> It's also not obvious to me that a bona fide labor movement would take a particularly strong stance on an executive order curtailing independent agencies
It should be absolutely obvious why the labor movement might be opposed to what is literally the largest layoff in American history.
I'm confused. 75 million people voted Democrat in the last election. That's quite a few people on their side?
And I'm not sure it's a fair assessment to say union members 'barely' lean Democrat https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/10/17/key-facts...
> There’s very few groups outside of the Democratic Party infrastructure which are polarized enough to take a side.
The last 2 presidential elections saw the highest turnouts since 1968. It seems like people aren't having a problem picking sides.
And I'm not sure it's a fair assessment to say union members 'barely' lean Democrat https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/10/17/key-facts...
> There’s very few groups outside of the Democratic Party infrastructure which are polarized enough to take a side.
The last 2 presidential elections saw the highest turnouts since 1968. It seems like people aren't having a problem picking sides.
I'm not saying that nobody supports the Democrats over the Republicans. There's two interrelated points:
* Supporting the Democratic Party against its main opponent is very different from supporting it in its own right. There's a lot of people in the US who would prefer for Chuck Schumer to be the majority leader, but very few who look to him for cues on what they ought to believe or fight for.
* There's very few spaces where the Democrats are dominant enough to form a nucleus of mass resistance. 50-43 among union members is a nonzero lead, but if you go to your union local to organize an anti-Trump protest, that 43% represents quite a lot of voices who won't agree with the premise that there's anything to protest.
* Supporting the Democratic Party against its main opponent is very different from supporting it in its own right. There's a lot of people in the US who would prefer for Chuck Schumer to be the majority leader, but very few who look to him for cues on what they ought to believe or fight for.
* There's very few spaces where the Democrats are dominant enough to form a nucleus of mass resistance. 50-43 among union members is a nonzero lead, but if you go to your union local to organize an anti-Trump protest, that 43% represents quite a lot of voices who won't agree with the premise that there's anything to protest.
Irrespective of sides, I would imagine that most Americans believe they are on the 'side' of democracy and a constitutional republic. When they become aware that this is being taken away, I might suggest that many will change their vote.
It is winter, come springtime the protests will be huge
ergonaught(3)
cess11(1)
Trump is bringing up the point that this Republic's constitution only provides for three branches of a government, not 4.
This reminds me of a supreme Court ruling a few years ago where the rights of native Indians had been trampled on in Oklahoma for 100 years. The court said something like "well, now that you bring it up--stop it!"
This reminds me of a supreme Court ruling a few years ago where the rights of native Indians had been trampled on in Oklahoma for 100 years. The court said something like "well, now that you bring it up--stop it!"
Trump is bringing up the point that all employees of the executive branch owe fealty to him, and must act directly in accordance with is directives above Congress.
And also above rulings from the Judicial Branch.
Yeah, way to go Trump! Nothing better than securing the Lockean virtue of the unspoken 4th branch of government by...
checks notes
Castrating the other 2 in an effort to consolidate the third! Yeah!!
checks notes
Castrating the other 2 in an effort to consolidate the third! Yeah!!
This will probably get flagged, but if you read this, spent a few minutes trying to understand the gravity of this specific EO. Every federal employee even in independent agents must and will jump when Trump says so. Even if he asks them to do something illegal (close the congress! Jail a democrat!), they must follow his orders. Because HIS interpretation of the law cannot be superseded.
If he wanted to fire anyone who disagreed with him, this EO wouldn’t have been necessary. With very few exceptions, executive branch employees serve at the pleasure of the President.
This is how it is, how it has been, and is entirely consistent with the Constitution.
So, if not that, then why issue this EO?
First of all, it’s a statement: “Resistance to this agenda from within the executive branch will not be effective”
Secondly, it helps ensure that when the President issues a statement, it’s not immediately met with bureaucrats making statements to the contrary.
This is how it is, how it has been, and is entirely consistent with the Constitution.
So, if not that, then why issue this EO?
First of all, it’s a statement: “Resistance to this agenda from within the executive branch will not be effective”
Secondly, it helps ensure that when the President issues a statement, it’s not immediately met with bureaucrats making statements to the contrary.
> If he wanted to fire anyone who disagreed with him, this EO wouldn’t have been necessary.
Nonsense! This is the exact opposite! This is EO shows Trump trying even harder to fire all the people who refuse to go along with his crimes.
He is asserting that when the Judicial branch concludes his firings are illegal, he's going to ignore it, and then fire anyone else who refuses to help him illegally fire people.
It's the democracy-destroying version of a Monty Python sketch: The people who followed the law have been sacked. The people who didn't sack the people who followed the law have also been sacked.
Nonsense! This is the exact opposite! This is EO shows Trump trying even harder to fire all the people who refuse to go along with his crimes.
He is asserting that when the Judicial branch concludes his firings are illegal, he's going to ignore it, and then fire anyone else who refuses to help him illegally fire people.
It's the democracy-destroying version of a Monty Python sketch: The people who followed the law have been sacked. The people who didn't sack the people who followed the law have also been sacked.
> He is asserting that when the Judicial concludes his firings are illegal, he's going to ignore it, and fire anyone else who refuses to help him illegally fire people.
Where?
Where?
"No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law"
Immediately succeeded by “, including but not limited to the issuance of regulations, guidance, and positions advanced in litigation, unless authorized to do so by the President or in writing by the Attorney General.”
… and preceded by “The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch”
Nothing in that says anything about countermanding a judicial ruling. If anything, it says that the President should set the strategy during litigation rather than one federal case making one argument while another makes a contradictory argument in reference to the same law.
… and preceded by “The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch”
Nothing in that says anything about countermanding a judicial ruling. If anything, it says that the President should set the strategy during litigation rather than one federal case making one argument while another makes a contradictory argument in reference to the same law.
Obviously he's not literally saying that, but I think it's clear that this is where all of it is going to go.
You’re wrong, many jobs are protected by congressional law. The executive branch can’t do just anything he wants. Sure some agencies he can but now all. This shit was decided a long time ago and there are several laws covering it. Congress is not doing their job and impeaching and firing this president. GOP don’t care if he’s a criminal as long as he is their criminal
What is an “independent agency”? Which branch of the government is that a part of? Which electoral representative do they report to?
I dunno, it makes sense that the federal branch that manages interest rates is independent of the president. Didn't we have a whole thing where Trump couldn't force rate increases or decreases back in 2020? Do we really want Trump to declare interest rate changes via tweeting or whatever?
What about things like drug approvals? I don't want Trump to ban certain drugs just because they didn't donate to his campaign. I don't want Trump to approve Elon Musk's brain chips just because Musk told him to.
What about things like drug approvals? I don't want Trump to ban certain drugs just because they didn't donate to his campaign. I don't want Trump to approve Elon Musk's brain chips just because Musk told him to.
It makes sense that we don’t elect a fed chairmen, but if the fed chairmen doesn’t report to any elected official then where do they get their authority?
Supreme Court Judges are appointed by elected officials, but then don’t report to anyone. Maybe a fed chairmen is like that? But there is no constitutional office like that. Surely congress can’t make up offices which are then untouchable?
I don’t want trump playing transactional games with the FDA either, but I don’t see how that can be balanced with the powers. He is the chief executive.
I mentioned in another comment that one angle that would make more sense than arguing that agencies are “independent” is to argue that trump is not enforcing the law already written by congress, so taking away the power of the legislature. That seems like a more fruitful take.
Supreme Court Judges are appointed by elected officials, but then don’t report to anyone. Maybe a fed chairmen is like that? But there is no constitutional office like that. Surely congress can’t make up offices which are then untouchable?
I don’t want trump playing transactional games with the FDA either, but I don’t see how that can be balanced with the powers. He is the chief executive.
I mentioned in another comment that one angle that would make more sense than arguing that agencies are “independent” is to argue that trump is not enforcing the law already written by congress, so taking away the power of the legislature. That seems like a more fruitful take.
The chairman of the Federal Reserve is accountable to Congress. The chairman must regularly report to and testify before Congress.
This is established in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
This is established in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
> regularly report to and testify before Congress
Delivering reports to is different than them being able to hire and fire. Presidents appoint fed chairmen.
Delivering reports to is different than them being able to hire and fire. Presidents appoint fed chairmen.
> It makes sense that we don’t elect a fed chairmen, but if the fed chairmen doesn’t report to any elected official then where do they get their authority?
Congress put in a process for a fed chairman to be appointed in a way that jointly incorporates president, house and senate. Similarly firing them also needs joint cooperation, then the people have some say by electing/unelecting a congress or president that fucks it up. Same for FDA, USPS, etc etc. I definitely want a formalized process to hire and fire these guys and not just up to whims of individual executives.
Congress put in a process for a fed chairman to be appointed in a way that jointly incorporates president, house and senate. Similarly firing them also needs joint cooperation, then the people have some say by electing/unelecting a congress or president that fucks it up. Same for FDA, USPS, etc etc. I definitely want a formalized process to hire and fire these guys and not just up to whims of individual executives.
The Fed is a bit of an odd duck because it's structured quite a bit differently than most federal agencies.
But sure, Trump could absolutely instruct the FDA to rescind certain drug approvals. There are of course processes that legally need to be followed in order to do that, but he could do it.
But sure, Trump could absolutely instruct the FDA to rescind certain drug approvals. There are of course processes that legally need to be followed in order to do that, but he could do it.
> it makes sense that the federal branch that manages interest rates is independent of the president.
You left out who the federal reserve is controlled by. It's not completely independent right? In its current form, it is owned and controlled by regional federal reserves which are controlled by the banks.
You are advocating for the corporate bank control of the money supply (and interest rates). One definition of fascism is the merger of corporate and government power. One sign of oligarchy is when corporations control the regulation of their industry.
"Independent government agencies" is just a code word for industry controlled government agencies (which are a form of fascism or oligarchy).
You left out who the federal reserve is controlled by. It's not completely independent right? In its current form, it is owned and controlled by regional federal reserves which are controlled by the banks.
You are advocating for the corporate bank control of the money supply (and interest rates). One definition of fascism is the merger of corporate and government power. One sign of oligarchy is when corporations control the regulation of their industry.
"Independent government agencies" is just a code word for industry controlled government agencies (which are a form of fascism or oligarchy).
sdenton4(1)
In Germany the legal executive branch is “Weisungsgebunden” which mean it follows the lead of the politicians instead of acting on own behalf. Because of this international warrants which come from Germany do not get followed since they can’t be trusted.
It would be better to have independent judges but hey it doesn’t lead to a dictatorship and the end of the world directly as propagated everywhere.
It would be better to have independent judges but hey it doesn’t lead to a dictatorship and the end of the world directly as propagated everywhere.
> independent judges
Judges are independent in Germany. Prosecutors are not.
> Because of this international warrants which come from Germany do not get followed since they can’t be trusted.
I think you mean the European Arrest Warrant[1], and you are right that it is not accepted when issued by German prosecuters, because they are not indepepndent[2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Arrest_Warrant [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europ%C3%A4ischer_Haftbefehl#D... [2]
Judges are independent in Germany. Prosecutors are not.
> Because of this international warrants which come from Germany do not get followed since they can’t be trusted.
I think you mean the European Arrest Warrant[1], and you are right that it is not accepted when issued by German prosecuters, because they are not indepepndent[2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Arrest_Warrant [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europ%C3%A4ischer_Haftbefehl#D... [2]
> Judges are independent in Germany. Prosecutors are not.
Exactly! It's the same in Austria btw. See https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter_(Deutschland)#Dienstau... and https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staatsanwaltschaft_(Deutschlan...
Exactly! It's the same in Austria btw. See https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter_(Deutschland)#Dienstau... and https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staatsanwaltschaft_(Deutschlan...
You say these things as if the very frameworks of our country were not under attack. I think it's hard to describe how far beyond our constitution we really are here. Our constitution and especially our institutions are no match for what the right wing is doing.
maybe not dictatorship but blatant abuse of power by the government.
Judges in Germany are independent and most of the time appointed for life. German state attorneys are not independent. Their warrants are not recognized internationally, not even in the EU in fact.
So disappointed by the irrational and hyperbolic comments from my fellow nerds. Why are folks reading into this so much!? Clearly folks aren’t actually reading the content and just reacting based on a headline. Read, contemplate, compose. This really shouldn’t be an inflammatory exec order - from what I can tell this is precisely within the purview of a POTUS and precisely in line with historical exec orders. Why the cray cray reactions? Just cause Trump I guess. For shame. Be nerds. Look stuff up. Stop with the hyperbolic “fascist” “coup” business. If you disagree with strategy, fine!! But at least recognize that these ideas aren’t new - nor fascistic - they’re inherently American and we’re in the midst of an adjustment cycle where these old ideals will be expressed in new modalities that we don’t all agree with. Doesn’t make it “fascist”. Ugh. So juvenile.
Rather than gesturing generally at all of these "irrational" and "hyperbolic" comments, why not take the time to thoughtfully rebut any specific comment that you believe is engaging in irrationality and hyperbole?
I would also cool it with the dismissive tone and avoid saying things like "cray cray" before accusing anyone else of being juvenile.
I would also cool it with the dismissive tone and avoid saying things like "cray cray" before accusing anyone else of being juvenile.
Kushner said it best. "Noone goes as low as Trump." So you also get to deal with what politics looks like when it reaches its lowest, nastiest form.
Trump's a hero to the right, but on the left there's a pretty reasonable sense that Trump's actions have already amounted to literal treason if you consider him to have an obligation to uphold the oaths he has taken.
He attempted to get Zelensky to go on US TV and execute a political attack on Democrats as a condition of the US helping Ukraine.
He attempted to get the 2020 election flipped by making mafia-don style calls to Georgia asking them to "find" precisely the number of votes which would have made him win that election. He next asked Pence to change the result for him. All of these were acts of open treason against the People of the United States, so long as you count the People of the United States as including people who didn't vote for him.
Trump's a hero to the right, but on the left there's a pretty reasonable sense that Trump's actions have already amounted to literal treason if you consider him to have an obligation to uphold the oaths he has taken.
He attempted to get Zelensky to go on US TV and execute a political attack on Democrats as a condition of the US helping Ukraine.
He attempted to get the 2020 election flipped by making mafia-don style calls to Georgia asking them to "find" precisely the number of votes which would have made him win that election. He next asked Pence to change the result for him. All of these were acts of open treason against the People of the United States, so long as you count the People of the United States as including people who didn't vote for him.
To make it crystal f**ing clear: him changing the policy of the US isn't treason. Cozying up to Russia or trying to reduce the size of the government are his prerogative as elected leader in a way that trying to change the result of an election is not. Ohh yeah and I forgot that he tried to get everyone to stop counting the votes while he was ahead! That also goes in the treason most foul bucket.
> trying to reduce the size of the government are his prerogative as elected leader
No, that function is within the purview of the legislature, not the executive branch.
No, that function is within the purview of the legislature, not the executive branch.
What's your personal threshold for gatekeeping when people are supposed to call it fascist?
Have you done your nerd research on how Nazis dismantled the democratic state? If so, at what step would you have gatekept calling it fascist?
Blanket calling worried people as "juvenile" as a dismissal is in itself pretty fucking juvenile, hope you can see that.
Have you done your nerd research on how Nazis dismantled the democratic state? If so, at what step would you have gatekept calling it fascist?
Blanket calling worried people as "juvenile" as a dismissal is in itself pretty fucking juvenile, hope you can see that.
Progressives are using words like Nazi and fascist, purely as a slur against a political rival, without really understanding what those words mean nor the attrocities they represent.
What the Nazi's did was horrifici, and it's incredibly insensitive, inappropriate, and, yes, juvenile, to water that down by using it for political point scoring.
What the Nazi's did was horrifici, and it's incredibly insensitive, inappropriate, and, yes, juvenile, to water that down by using it for political point scoring.
What’s the threshold before you can say it? Doing nazi salutes and mass deleting the public research / books / info pages isn’t far enough yet?
Not only progressives are calling it fascism or proto-fascism, do you understand the steps fascism takes to fully take hold? Don't you see any parallels? Have you read any books on the subject?
It seems like you get butthurt from reading people calling moves very similar to fascism done by politicians you support, fascism takes many flavours, Italian fascism was different from German fascism. The way it's going the past month looks like to be shaping an American flavour of fascism.
There's no watering down, you are seeing with your own eyes a movement happening where the leader of the executive is attempting to snatch power, it never happens at once, it's always through salami slicing. What will be the breaking point for you, specifically? What signs do you expect so it can be called fascism?
You are all around this forum whining about "progressives" trying to heed a call about a dark path being traced. You never seem to acknowledge there are very worrying moves happening, for some reason you do not want to hear it, you want to shut off the discussion at every turn by using progressives as a slur, and anything said by that out-group as wrong or hysterical a priori. Can't you see how stupid it is? You are always attempting to throw a wrench into these discussions with vitriol, as a non-American I really ask you to inform and educate yourself better, to learn about the process of fascism before coming with knee-jerk reactions because you don't like "progressives".
Go read "Hitler's Beneficiaries", read any book on historical recounts of the process of fascism unravelling from the 1920s to the 1930s, you are behaving exactly as the citizens enabling Mussolini and Hitler. American Fascism will not be Nazi or Italia Fascista, it has its own shape and form (such as not being anti-semitic, completely different to Nazis) but even though the topography differs, the core principles are pretty much the same.
Don't be an enabler, you won't like to be on the wrong side of history.
It seems like you get butthurt from reading people calling moves very similar to fascism done by politicians you support, fascism takes many flavours, Italian fascism was different from German fascism. The way it's going the past month looks like to be shaping an American flavour of fascism.
There's no watering down, you are seeing with your own eyes a movement happening where the leader of the executive is attempting to snatch power, it never happens at once, it's always through salami slicing. What will be the breaking point for you, specifically? What signs do you expect so it can be called fascism?
You are all around this forum whining about "progressives" trying to heed a call about a dark path being traced. You never seem to acknowledge there are very worrying moves happening, for some reason you do not want to hear it, you want to shut off the discussion at every turn by using progressives as a slur, and anything said by that out-group as wrong or hysterical a priori. Can't you see how stupid it is? You are always attempting to throw a wrench into these discussions with vitriol, as a non-American I really ask you to inform and educate yourself better, to learn about the process of fascism before coming with knee-jerk reactions because you don't like "progressives".
Go read "Hitler's Beneficiaries", read any book on historical recounts of the process of fascism unravelling from the 1920s to the 1930s, you are behaving exactly as the citizens enabling Mussolini and Hitler. American Fascism will not be Nazi or Italia Fascista, it has its own shape and form (such as not being anti-semitic, completely different to Nazis) but even though the topography differs, the core principles are pretty much the same.
Don't be an enabler, you won't like to be on the wrong side of history.
Few days ago, in Poland died a journalist, historian and former Auschwitz concentration camp prisoner. He was known for speaking every year there. His last speech was - remain vigilant.
I think that speaks for itself and I need not to comment on this.
Americans, why? Why are you so keen on dabbling with a homegrown fascism of yours? Why are you so keen on setting the world aflame?
I think that speaks for itself and I need not to comment on this.
Americans, why? Why are you so keen on dabbling with a homegrown fascism of yours? Why are you so keen on setting the world aflame?
Eggs cost too much.
> What signs do you expect so it can be called fascism?
I think some people just know a few images from the Nazis at the height of their power. Or the death camps, that were only discovered because the Nazis lost the war (the plan was to erase all traces, after all). No concept of the 1920s, not even "Mein Kampf", nothing.
I think some people just know a few images from the Nazis at the height of their power. Or the death camps, that were only discovered because the Nazis lost the war (the plan was to erase all traces, after all). No concept of the 1920s, not even "Mein Kampf", nothing.
That's been my impression too, seems like people (even more Americans) are extremely uneducated about the whole process of fascism. Instead they end up with this cartoonesque picture of what it looks like: SS officers standing guard over concentration camps, Hitler's speeches to huge crowds wearing swastika armbands, war.
No, that's the fucking end point of it, after all is done and the wheels have been far gone from the wagon, the process itself is much more nuanced and step-wise but the uneducated ones never ever heard of it. Feels like they live in a world where someone turned on a switch and everything changed at once...
Worst: it's coming from people who have lived through a pandemic, watched the social strife and divisions unfolding right in front of their faces, how can those same people not see that massive social movements aren't ever clear-cut? It's all just so stupid and ignorant.
No, that's the fucking end point of it, after all is done and the wheels have been far gone from the wagon, the process itself is much more nuanced and step-wise but the uneducated ones never ever heard of it. Feels like they live in a world where someone turned on a switch and everything changed at once...
Worst: it's coming from people who have lived through a pandemic, watched the social strife and divisions unfolding right in front of their faces, how can those same people not see that massive social movements aren't ever clear-cut? It's all just so stupid and ignorant.
As an American, I'm not surprised, unfortunately. When we learn about history in grade school, we don't really learn about the rise of fascism in the 1920s and 30s. If we do, little time is spent on it. Most of the time is spent on WWII itself, with of course a bunch of self-congratulatory stuff about how the world would have burned if the US hadn't joined in (conveniently ignoring how long it took for the US to join in).
Most Americans couldn't tell you much about how Hitler came into power. (Or Mussolini? Forget it.) The majority of what Americans know about it all are exactly what you said: black-and-white scenes of SS officers, Hilter giving speeches, and swastika armbands.
There's no lingering WWII war damage in the US. We don't have monuments dedicating places where major battles were fought. The war wasn't fought here. We don't see reminders of what all that was like.
When I was born, WWII was only 35 years behind us. Many of the people who were involved in it at the time (politicians, soldiers, etc.) were not only alive, but still active in public discourse in major ways. But today, WWII ended 80 years ago. Most everyone who experienced it is dead. Awareness of all of it is still present in Europe because it was all literally close to home. Not so in the US.
This honestly shouldn't be all that surprising. History repeats and rhymes, over and over throughout the decades and centuries. All it takes is a couple generations to forget its lessons.
I see comments in these threads from people who lived through the forming of dictatorships in their countries. I wish more people would listen to them.
Most Americans couldn't tell you much about how Hitler came into power. (Or Mussolini? Forget it.) The majority of what Americans know about it all are exactly what you said: black-and-white scenes of SS officers, Hilter giving speeches, and swastika armbands.
There's no lingering WWII war damage in the US. We don't have monuments dedicating places where major battles were fought. The war wasn't fought here. We don't see reminders of what all that was like.
When I was born, WWII was only 35 years behind us. Many of the people who were involved in it at the time (politicians, soldiers, etc.) were not only alive, but still active in public discourse in major ways. But today, WWII ended 80 years ago. Most everyone who experienced it is dead. Awareness of all of it is still present in Europe because it was all literally close to home. Not so in the US.
This honestly shouldn't be all that surprising. History repeats and rhymes, over and over throughout the decades and centuries. All it takes is a couple generations to forget its lessons.
I see comments in these threads from people who lived through the forming of dictatorships in their countries. I wish more people would listen to them.
I don't call Trump's recent actions as strictly Nazi, but they are definitely Fascist.
batushka5(3)
scarab92(1)
This is not hyperbolic. In one month Trump has taken full unchecked power on almost anything. In 4 years, you won’t vote, that’s a given.
Republicans were saying the exact same thing when Obama was elected.
That doesn't actually argue anything, though. One group can be wrong about something, and another group can be right about a similar thing in a different context and different time.
(For the record, I don't agree with GP, and do believe that we'll have free and fair elections in 2028.)
(For the record, I don't agree with GP, and do believe that we'll have free and fair elections in 2028.)
scarab92(1)
So when 4 years pass and we’re still voting, are you going to admit you are hyperbolic and divorced from reality?
Would you be around if he does what he says ?
At what point are your personal thresholds crossed?
I dont understand personally, how any conservative could tolerate this man.
Nor any techie lose their minds when someone without a security clearance gets access to sensitive national networks.
I’ve seen more complex plans used by spies to break into state secrets.
Yet, people are surprisingly chill.
So perhaps I am wrong. And perhaps there are other signs I should be looking for.
At what point should I or anyone say “major redlines have been crossed.”
At what point are your personal thresholds crossed?
I dont understand personally, how any conservative could tolerate this man.
Nor any techie lose their minds when someone without a security clearance gets access to sensitive national networks.
I’ve seen more complex plans used by spies to break into state secrets.
Yet, people are surprisingly chill.
So perhaps I am wrong. And perhaps there are other signs I should be looking for.
At what point should I or anyone say “major redlines have been crossed.”
The red line for Trump's people unfortunately isn't doing anything bad. He could shoot a man on fifth avenue and not lose them. It would take him doing something which shows actual human decency and actually helps people. If he attempted to create "Trump-care" providing unconditional healthcare for all he would be impeached and out on his ass. God forbid if he were to recognize LGBTQ rights and acknowledge their legitimacy, that action would literally kill people from shock.
Exactly, the one area where he would lose the crowd is if he goes against the conservative "christians". ie: if he openly embraces LGBTQ, fully supports abortion rights, taxes churches etc. Only then would these people revolt.
> Nor any techie lose their minds when someone without a security clearance gets access to sensitive national networks.
There's something peculiar about how liberals are now so offended by "security" when the federal government has showed complete incompetence over the past decade or even more.
All the security clearance data was leaked from federal servers. What else do we have to lose. Never mind that countless federal employees see your social security info. It's regularly fraudulently submitted by illegal foreigners too.
None of the criticisms I've seen from you or others are alarming.
What was alarming was watching Biden for 4 years completely non compos mentis and a media filled with liberals who would censor and ridicule ANY mention of this obvious fact. That's the GRAVEST national security threat, everything else PALES in comparison, and not a peep from the people who lit their entire political capital on fire over the ridiculous patently-false charades to never admit fault.
There's something peculiar about how liberals are now so offended by "security" when the federal government has showed complete incompetence over the past decade or even more.
All the security clearance data was leaked from federal servers. What else do we have to lose. Never mind that countless federal employees see your social security info. It's regularly fraudulently submitted by illegal foreigners too.
None of the criticisms I've seen from you or others are alarming.
What was alarming was watching Biden for 4 years completely non compos mentis and a media filled with liberals who would censor and ridicule ANY mention of this obvious fact. That's the GRAVEST national security threat, everything else PALES in comparison, and not a peep from the people who lit their entire political capital on fire over the ridiculous patently-false charades to never admit fault.
Why are you dodging the question. I’m no longer playing ball with this idea that I will run after the next shiny object or gambit.
What are your personal red lines? I am serious. Sure. Biden may have been whatever, But you will still have some personal lines you wouldn’t cross.
You have values, you have things you would like to know you stood up for.
What are they? This isn’t a gotcha. If you think the line is not crossed, no problem.
But tell me what your lines are.
What are your personal red lines? I am serious. Sure. Biden may have been whatever, But you will still have some personal lines you wouldn’t cross.
You have values, you have things you would like to know you stood up for.
What are they? This isn’t a gotcha. If you think the line is not crossed, no problem.
But tell me what your lines are.
Sure. As long as:
- there are non Republican candidates to vote for
- the right to vote hasn't been crippled somehow
- elections are fair
- there are non Republican candidates to vote for
- the right to vote hasn't been crippled somehow
- elections are fair
I guarantee this will be the case, as it's been the case every election since forever including 2020 when liberals were fear-mongering (like they always do) when they were out of power.
Historic times we are living in.
When the history books are written, this executive order, along with the past few weeks of actions, will be seen as the seeds of the 2nd American revolution.
The USA had a solid 250 year run but technology, money, and greed have unfortunately undone the very core of what America stood for.
We cannot know at this point where this is going, but it seems like fascism is the inevitable course. My fear is that if you combine that path with the power of the US military, the world is in for a very scary time.
When the history books are written, this executive order, along with the past few weeks of actions, will be seen as the seeds of the 2nd American revolution.
The USA had a solid 250 year run but technology, money, and greed have unfortunately undone the very core of what America stood for.
We cannot know at this point where this is going, but it seems like fascism is the inevitable course. My fear is that if you combine that path with the power of the US military, the world is in for a very scary time.
[deleted]
5a - consistency with the President not the law. Classic principle of Russia and the likes.
SCOTUS bears a tremendous amount of responsibility for Trump's power grab. Its immunity-granting ruling means that it's extremely difficult to stop a President who decides to simply ignore the law.
Even if you think Trump is a "good guy" who is "doing the right thing", he's setting precedents whereby a President who is a "bad guy" could turn dictator, and then what? Literally the only option is impeachment, but the Senate has never convicted because there are enough senators who are afraid of a highly vindictive politician (and now his billionaire BBF) who __will__ go after them and whip up his base against them. If only they were more concerned about the country than their own re-election, but too few are willing to make that sacrifice.
(this couldn't be farther than the truth from all I've seen Trump do, but just entertaining the thought here)
Even if you think Trump is a "good guy" who is "doing the right thing", he's setting precedents whereby a President who is a "bad guy" could turn dictator, and then what? Literally the only option is impeachment, but the Senate has never convicted because there are enough senators who are afraid of a highly vindictive politician (and now his billionaire BBF) who __will__ go after them and whip up his base against them. If only they were more concerned about the country than their own re-election, but too few are willing to make that sacrifice.
(this couldn't be farther than the truth from all I've seen Trump do, but just entertaining the thought here)
I'm not sure that SCOTUS's immunity ruling is all that important here. It mainly served to delay Trump's federal criminal trials until it was too late to get anywhere. In the absence of that ruling, a president could still -- in collusion with their VP -- obtain immunity by:
1. While in office, relying on the DoJ's policy of never indicting a sitting president. (Not to mention the fact that they control the DoJ.)
2. On the last day of their presidency, they resign. The VP is sworn in as president, and pardons the now-former president for whatever they've done. (The former president can of course, before resigning, pardon the VP for anything they might have been involved in as well.)
Easy peasy.
1. While in office, relying on the DoJ's policy of never indicting a sitting president. (Not to mention the fact that they control the DoJ.)
2. On the last day of their presidency, they resign. The VP is sworn in as president, and pardons the now-former president for whatever they've done. (The former president can of course, before resigning, pardon the VP for anything they might have been involved in as well.)
Easy peasy.
It’s important because it gives him 100% immunity from all actions that even slightly be adjacent to “executive branch” . Almost unlimited spectrum of activities are allowed including killing Americans for no good reason. Short of him walking out the door of the WH and gunning down a tour bus of tourists with his own machine gun, the SCOTUS gave him cover to say “whoops, I thought that was ok”
Sure, Trump could "find a way" regardless. But the SCOTUS ruling gives him more of a cover, and more importantly, removed a potential threat.
This whole situation really goes to show that both the judiciary and the legislature need to be greatly expanded -- probably by 10 fold or more. Even if you greatly reduce the size of the federal government.
The executive employs approximately 3,000,000 employees. The federal judiciary only employs about 30,000 total, and the legislature about 20,000 total. The sheer velocity with which the executive can ram through questionable directives *and have them executed upon* (despite the law) means the other "co-equal" branches of government are always potentially on the back foot. It's just a personnel game. Trump has only highlighted how absurdly easy it is to abuse this imbalance.
And after the Chevron and Trump decisions, it's only going to get worse and worse. I do think these Federalist Society types who pushed these unitary executive theory ideas have now created a monster. They've created a situation where the executive has immunity to simply apply the law however it wants, clogging up the judiciary with civil and federal suits, and where the Congress cannot pass laws fast enough or with great enough specificity to avoid defying Chevron or avoid executive misapplication. Meanwhile the executive has long since moved on from the original issue to the next 10 issues, and the next 10, and the next 10, while the courts and the Congress are still only getting started on the first few problems. And the executive will never really get "punished" for these actions because of its supposed immunity.
And presidential elections don't really help with this problem. Because one president has 4 years to drastically reshape everything, and the next president will spend all of their 4 years reverting it, dropping all the previous suits, creating its own litany of new suits, and rinse and repeat. The hysteresis of this process is too long and leads to instability and chaos.
The executive employs approximately 3,000,000 employees. The federal judiciary only employs about 30,000 total, and the legislature about 20,000 total. The sheer velocity with which the executive can ram through questionable directives *and have them executed upon* (despite the law) means the other "co-equal" branches of government are always potentially on the back foot. It's just a personnel game. Trump has only highlighted how absurdly easy it is to abuse this imbalance.
And after the Chevron and Trump decisions, it's only going to get worse and worse. I do think these Federalist Society types who pushed these unitary executive theory ideas have now created a monster. They've created a situation where the executive has immunity to simply apply the law however it wants, clogging up the judiciary with civil and federal suits, and where the Congress cannot pass laws fast enough or with great enough specificity to avoid defying Chevron or avoid executive misapplication. Meanwhile the executive has long since moved on from the original issue to the next 10 issues, and the next 10, and the next 10, while the courts and the Congress are still only getting started on the first few problems. And the executive will never really get "punished" for these actions because of its supposed immunity.
And presidential elections don't really help with this problem. Because one president has 4 years to drastically reshape everything, and the next president will spend all of their 4 years reverting it, dropping all the previous suits, creating its own litany of new suits, and rinse and repeat. The hysteresis of this process is too long and leads to instability and chaos.
What about Chevron is a problem in this particular case, though? My understanding is that ditching the doctrine of Chevron deference puts more power back in the hands of the judiciary.
How is it that these executive orders are deemed "legal"? They're written in a way that make it seem like the President is Judge Dredd ;)
But seriously - don't we have institutions that verify and reject obvious overreaches of power like this?
But seriously - don't we have institutions that verify and reject obvious overreaches of power like this?
Why do you think they are called "Independent Agencies"?
Can we work on our definition of "Independent Agency"?
The founders of this country intentionally did not create a "King" role.
Can we work on our definition of "Independent Agency"?
The founders of this country intentionally did not create a "King" role.
‘Executive order’ is starting to sound like the compilation of Garrett calling out ‘emergency crisis’ in Community in the two worlds with the Model United Nations, S3E02 iirc.
[deleted]
I wonder when he's going to go after the Fed.
After his policies crash the market and he blames it on them, of course.
Even POTUS is not immune to the wrath of trillions of dollars. I think he has been warned off that awhile back (last time he was President).
Not incidentally, both the FTC and SEC have ongoing investigations or enforcement actions against companies owned by Elon Musk.
What a coincidence
What a coincidence
Wonder how long it'll take for the media outlets to start blaming Biden again, "well he should have put protections in!"
When inflation starts to be a problem again (it's already rising) they'll still blame him. Fascism requires scapegoats. Ironically, that is their downfall too, because they are utterly incapable of introspection and self-improvement.
It may be a good time to study how Stalin came to power in the USSR. It wasn't through the political establishment, but by taking absolute control of the bureaucracy.
The USSR was already a one party dictatorship at that point, so I don't know if that's a relevant example.
Yes, it was a single party government, but not consolidated under a dictator until Stalin. Even Lenin, until he basically retired (was very sick and died soon thereafter), didn't have the iron grip on the government that Stalin did.
My high level take on this saga is: welcome to the Chinese century.
It's very common for companies that are failing to adopt uncreative reactive strategies that hasten their collapse. Look at the history of Kodak for some good examples. MAGA is that for the United States -- respond to the challenges of the new century by going back to the 1950s. MAGA (and Project 2025) is going to turbocharge American decline.
The pathetic thing is that while the US (like everyone else) has significant problems, it was not "failing," but we decided to do this anyway largely because of culture war panic bullshit.
Before this, America was in a place where it could credibly have continued to hold onto its global power. Its higher birth rate combined with a high immigration rate from all over the world meant its demographics were much better than China's. It was the world's #1 destination for high skill immigrants. The dollar is the global reserve, and that's hard to unseat due to network effects. Its military is still the most powerful. It still has an edge in many areas of high technology. Its universities are still arguably the best. It's still arguably the center of global pop culture.
Now it looks like we will systematically forfeit all that. We'll close our borders to general migration and will no longer be an attractive destination for skilled immigration. By removing reproductive rights I predict we'll actually decrease the birth rate by driving people to sterilize themselves (already happening) and driving a further wedge between genders (see the Korean 4B movement). The dollar will start losing ground. Our military may stay dominant for a while but will gradually slip with everything else. We'll gradually lose our technological edge to brain drain and lack of high skill immigration. We're going to run some kind of culture war purge on the universities or maybe even defund the best higher education system in the world. We'll lose our cultural edge because right wing culture warriors will drive away all the artists.
Imagine Germany without Naziism where they drove away or killed all their intellectuals. Imagine if Weimar Germany with its incredible intellectual and cultural scene had recovered economically and remained functional. They had the greatest minds in physics, philosophy, psychology, mathematics, and many areas of engineering. It's likely that without Hitler Germany would have developed the microprocessor, ArpaNet and Silicon Valley would have been German, the Germans would have landed on the Moon, etc.
Muscular reactionary politics is a cult of what looks strong, not what is strong.
It's very common for companies that are failing to adopt uncreative reactive strategies that hasten their collapse. Look at the history of Kodak for some good examples. MAGA is that for the United States -- respond to the challenges of the new century by going back to the 1950s. MAGA (and Project 2025) is going to turbocharge American decline.
The pathetic thing is that while the US (like everyone else) has significant problems, it was not "failing," but we decided to do this anyway largely because of culture war panic bullshit.
Before this, America was in a place where it could credibly have continued to hold onto its global power. Its higher birth rate combined with a high immigration rate from all over the world meant its demographics were much better than China's. It was the world's #1 destination for high skill immigrants. The dollar is the global reserve, and that's hard to unseat due to network effects. Its military is still the most powerful. It still has an edge in many areas of high technology. Its universities are still arguably the best. It's still arguably the center of global pop culture.
Now it looks like we will systematically forfeit all that. We'll close our borders to general migration and will no longer be an attractive destination for skilled immigration. By removing reproductive rights I predict we'll actually decrease the birth rate by driving people to sterilize themselves (already happening) and driving a further wedge between genders (see the Korean 4B movement). The dollar will start losing ground. Our military may stay dominant for a while but will gradually slip with everything else. We'll gradually lose our technological edge to brain drain and lack of high skill immigration. We're going to run some kind of culture war purge on the universities or maybe even defund the best higher education system in the world. We'll lose our cultural edge because right wing culture warriors will drive away all the artists.
Imagine Germany without Naziism where they drove away or killed all their intellectuals. Imagine if Weimar Germany with its incredible intellectual and cultural scene had recovered economically and remained functional. They had the greatest minds in physics, philosophy, psychology, mathematics, and many areas of engineering. It's likely that without Hitler Germany would have developed the microprocessor, ArpaNet and Silicon Valley would have been German, the Germans would have landed on the Moon, etc.
Muscular reactionary politics is a cult of what looks strong, not what is strong.
Here is the crux. If during this time they also dismantle the checks and balances that allow a stable democracy to exist then they transition into chaos. Chaos creates a very convenient excuse to establish martial law. This is accelerated if the people rise up to protest the dismantling of democracy. Martial law leads to suspension of elections, ipso facto, the loss of democracy.
Agreed -- which will vastly accelerate the collapse of the US empire since everyone around the world will start diversifying away even faster. If this kind of scenario happens then USD hyperinflationary collapse is on the table.
The Heritage Foundation might get their Gilead LARP in the form of a hollowed out declining US whose young and high-skill people are pouring across the border in the 'out' direction. Meanwhile China is cracking AGI and fusion and landing on Mars with an improved clone of Starship built for 1/2 the price.
The Heritage Foundation might get their Gilead LARP in the form of a hollowed out declining US whose young and high-skill people are pouring across the border in the 'out' direction. Meanwhile China is cracking AGI and fusion and landing on Mars with an improved clone of Starship built for 1/2 the price.
At least we'll start publicly funding religious evangelical Christian schools.
This creates strong associations to „Machtergreifung“ and „Gleichschaltung“
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleichschaltung
The Nazi term Gleichschaltung (German pronunciation: [ˈɡlaɪçʃaltʊŋ] ⓘ), meaning "synchronization" or "bringing into line", was the process of Nazification by which Adolf Hitler—leader of the Nazi Party in Germany—established a system of totalitarian control and coordination over all aspects of German society "from the economy and trade associations to the media, culture and education".[1]
There is no direct counterpart in Englisch Wikipedia for:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machtergreifung
Machtergreifung Mit Machtergreifung (auch Machtübernahme oder Machtübergabe) wird die Ernennung des Nationalsozialisten Adolf Hitler zum Reichskanzler durch den Reichspräsidenten Paul von Hindenburg am 30. Januar 1933 bezeichnet. Hitler übernahm an diesem Tag die Führung einer Koalitionsregierung von NSDAP und nationalkonservativen Verbündeten (DNVP, Stahlhelm), in der neben ihm zunächst nur zwei Nationalsozialisten Regierungsämter bekleideten (Kabinett Hitler); dies waren Wilhelm Frick als Reichsinnenminister und Hermann Göring als Reichsminister ohne Geschäftsbereich. Zusätzlich zur eigentlichen Ernennung umfasst der Begriff die anschließende Umwandlung der bis dahin schon seit 1930 durch Präsidialkabinette geschwächten parlamentarischen Demokratie der Weimarer Republik und deren Verfassung in eine nach dem nationalsozialistischen Führerprinzip agierende zentralistische Diktatur.
Nachdem am 1. Februar das Parlament in Berlin, der Reichstag, aufgelöst worden war, schränkten die Machthaber in den folgenden – von nationalsozialistischem Terror gekennzeichneten – Monaten die politischen und demokratischen Rechte durch Notverordnungen des Präsidenten ein. Als entscheidende Schritte auf dem Weg zur Diktatur gelten die Verordnung des Reichspräsidenten zum Schutz von Volk und Staat (Reichstagsbrandverordnung) vom 28. Februar 1933 und das Ermächtigungsgesetz vom 24. März 1933. Der Reichstag verlor damit praktisch jegliche Entscheidungskompetenz. Neben vielen anderen wurden nun auch Parlamentarier ohne Gerichtsverfahren in Konzentrationslagern eingesperrt und gefoltert.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleichschaltung
The Nazi term Gleichschaltung (German pronunciation: [ˈɡlaɪçʃaltʊŋ] ⓘ), meaning "synchronization" or "bringing into line", was the process of Nazification by which Adolf Hitler—leader of the Nazi Party in Germany—established a system of totalitarian control and coordination over all aspects of German society "from the economy and trade associations to the media, culture and education".[1]
There is no direct counterpart in Englisch Wikipedia for:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machtergreifung
Machtergreifung Mit Machtergreifung (auch Machtübernahme oder Machtübergabe) wird die Ernennung des Nationalsozialisten Adolf Hitler zum Reichskanzler durch den Reichspräsidenten Paul von Hindenburg am 30. Januar 1933 bezeichnet. Hitler übernahm an diesem Tag die Führung einer Koalitionsregierung von NSDAP und nationalkonservativen Verbündeten (DNVP, Stahlhelm), in der neben ihm zunächst nur zwei Nationalsozialisten Regierungsämter bekleideten (Kabinett Hitler); dies waren Wilhelm Frick als Reichsinnenminister und Hermann Göring als Reichsminister ohne Geschäftsbereich. Zusätzlich zur eigentlichen Ernennung umfasst der Begriff die anschließende Umwandlung der bis dahin schon seit 1930 durch Präsidialkabinette geschwächten parlamentarischen Demokratie der Weimarer Republik und deren Verfassung in eine nach dem nationalsozialistischen Führerprinzip agierende zentralistische Diktatur.
Nachdem am 1. Februar das Parlament in Berlin, der Reichstag, aufgelöst worden war, schränkten die Machthaber in den folgenden – von nationalsozialistischem Terror gekennzeichneten – Monaten die politischen und demokratischen Rechte durch Notverordnungen des Präsidenten ein. Als entscheidende Schritte auf dem Weg zur Diktatur gelten die Verordnung des Reichspräsidenten zum Schutz von Volk und Staat (Reichstagsbrandverordnung) vom 28. Februar 1933 und das Ermächtigungsgesetz vom 24. März 1933. Der Reichstag verlor damit praktisch jegliche Entscheidungskompetenz. Neben vielen anderen wurden nun auch Parlamentarier ohne Gerichtsverfahren in Konzentrationslagern eingesperrt und gefoltert.
If people think that we are safe because it is a democracy, and Trump was somehow elected, let's not forget that Russia is also a democracy and Poutine was also elected and re-elected.
Now we can be scared because it shows that "votation" doesn't prevent dictators to grab the power to abuse if it for their own good.
Now we can be scared because it shows that "votation" doesn't prevent dictators to grab the power to abuse if it for their own good.
I am duly elected and I set the laws, and interpret the rules as I please - as a duly elected representative with spineless Congress.
Signed
Your neighborhood dictator
Signed
Your neighborhood dictator
50.001% of Americans voted for this. FAFO
An independent regulatory agency are established by law and function outside direct executive supervision. That’s the whole purpose: they’re supposed to be non partisan.
But there’s a loop hole - this independence isn’t codified. Rather an executive order from 1993 (12866) required federal agencies to submit proposals to OMB but exempted regulatory agencies. Today Trump is closing that loop hole.
So if that’s not congress’s intent (which I’m sure is not) then they will need to pass a law soon making these agencies independence from the president explicit
But there’s a loop hole - this independence isn’t codified. Rather an executive order from 1993 (12866) required federal agencies to submit proposals to OMB but exempted regulatory agencies. Today Trump is closing that loop hole.
So if that’s not congress’s intent (which I’m sure is not) then they will need to pass a law soon making these agencies independence from the president explicit
Who wrote this?
The President of the United States, of course. Or one of his subordinates, who, according to this missive, has the full authority same as the U.S. president, of course.
"An assault on the king's men is the same as an assault on the king" and all that...
"An assault on the king's men is the same as an assault on the king" and all that...
This is a power grab that is unprecedented.
No one left to investigate Trump himself or his followers, no control, no means of ensuring a fair election…
No one left to investigate Trump himself or his followers, no control, no means of ensuring a fair election…
Executive Orders aren’t law.
This Executive Order says they are law, checkmate, sane people.
Where exactly does it say that?
It doesn’t need to be said everywhere when the president takes full power for himself and all institutions let him do so without saying anything.
Perhaps not. But that wasn't Terr_'s claim. Where does it say that?
The way I read it, Terr was being sarcastic
Section 7
Judge can say no it isn’t and you’ll have to fight it out in court.
And that's why they've been threatening uncooperative judges with prison and unemployment.
The judge doesn't have control of law enforcement and the military.
The states can say no.
Well half of them outright won't for obvious reasons. And so what if a state says no? That doesn't change anything. He is now saying his word is above the legislative and judicial branch and all enforcement and regulatory powers of the federal government answer exclusively to his will.
This is America's Gleichschaltung. The president is now the absolute authority of the entire administrative state.
This is America's Gleichschaltung. The president is now the absolute authority of the entire administrative state.
The president has no such authority, no matter how much he claims to. The power is with the states.
> No matter how much he claims to.
Unless he makes a series of public orders that says he will install Apparatchiks in every independent agency and law enforcement agency for compliance, will (and does) fire anyone who goes against his will, then states that he is the sole arbiter of law for all law enforcement and military members.
Then he very much can have that authority if enough people comply. And, if you look around, it's pretty obvious the police and executive are complying.
Unless he makes a series of public orders that says he will install Apparatchiks in every independent agency and law enforcement agency for compliance, will (and does) fire anyone who goes against his will, then states that he is the sole arbiter of law for all law enforcement and military members.
Then he very much can have that authority if enough people comply. And, if you look around, it's pretty obvious the police and executive are complying.
Since the President’s power ultimately relies on others compliance, what if a bunch of very high ranking officials in the military simply decide they’re going to ignore the President? No more power.
At the end of the day, there is no true forcing function that forces people to comply if they don’t want to. It can all come crumbling down. Trump is playing a dangerous game.
At the end of the day, there is no true forcing function that forces people to comply if they don’t want to. It can all come crumbling down. Trump is playing a dangerous game.
State power has only gotten weaker and weaker compared to the federal government over time.
And then they'll lose federal funding for all sorts of things. The states will sue, possibly win, and Trump will say "make me", and the judiciary will sigh and say "we can't".
We have a government that has been completely capture by the elite. Democrats are the oligarchs good cops offering performative resistance while ultimately consenting to anything that boosts their brokerage accounts and re-election budgets, while republicans are the oligarchs bad cops, directly weakening regulation of those with power, protections for those without, and systematically destroying any force that can stand up to the insanely wealthy. Republicans are setting the wealthy up for the mass privatization of public property and services as well as the purchase of all the assets firesold to sustain life during a disaster, like your parent's house when social security/medicare doesn't cover the cost of living, or like farmland that isn't profitable to farm because it's too expensive to import fertilizer.
The elite capture is multiplicitively damaging because the elite own nearly all major media outlets. WaPo, NYT, Facebook, Twitter, etc.
Neutrality is implicit support for power over justice. Justice requires challenging those with power, because those with power are the default victors in conflict. Evil wins when good men do nothing.
The Hacker News algorithm is easily gamed. Downvoting and flagging will sink any post, but resigned consent to a fait accompli is the win condition for this coup. The less they are publicly challenged, the easier it is to seize power without resistance. The easier it is to keep exercises of power unchecked.
State AGs and members of the house of representatives are making public official statements with the power of their office that we are experiencing a coup. This is historic.
I really wish dang would privilege more of these discussions about the end of constitutional rule from the automatic downward moderation of controversy and flagging.
The number of largely independent media platforms which allow for open and public discussion without major algorithmic influence is few. Failing to challenge power, submitting to it, or protecting yourself from attention is the easy thing to do, and right now we all have the privilege of doing so, but this slow moving disaster will seep into every area of our lives as the scaffolding of trust is eroded and the lack of consequences for those who exercise arbitrary power will make it a winning strategy to take advantage of people.
I understand hacker news is a place for curiosity, but curiosity is not allowed when obedience is demanded, and that is what authoritarians do, demand obedience. Maintaining one day's curiosity at the cost of tomorrow's defeats the goal of being a place for curiosity. The right to question authority... the right to be curious must be defended.
The elite capture is multiplicitively damaging because the elite own nearly all major media outlets. WaPo, NYT, Facebook, Twitter, etc.
Neutrality is implicit support for power over justice. Justice requires challenging those with power, because those with power are the default victors in conflict. Evil wins when good men do nothing.
The Hacker News algorithm is easily gamed. Downvoting and flagging will sink any post, but resigned consent to a fait accompli is the win condition for this coup. The less they are publicly challenged, the easier it is to seize power without resistance. The easier it is to keep exercises of power unchecked.
State AGs and members of the house of representatives are making public official statements with the power of their office that we are experiencing a coup. This is historic.
I really wish dang would privilege more of these discussions about the end of constitutional rule from the automatic downward moderation of controversy and flagging.
The number of largely independent media platforms which allow for open and public discussion without major algorithmic influence is few. Failing to challenge power, submitting to it, or protecting yourself from attention is the easy thing to do, and right now we all have the privilege of doing so, but this slow moving disaster will seep into every area of our lives as the scaffolding of trust is eroded and the lack of consequences for those who exercise arbitrary power will make it a winning strategy to take advantage of people.
I understand hacker news is a place for curiosity, but curiosity is not allowed when obedience is demanded, and that is what authoritarians do, demand obedience. Maintaining one day's curiosity at the cost of tomorrow's defeats the goal of being a place for curiosity. The right to question authority... the right to be curious must be defended.
I still don't buy the bothsidesism. You say at first they are part of the coup, quietly approving of what is happening, then pointing out the commentary by state AGs that this is a a power grab.
We agree this is a catastrophe, but I don't think that media and the liberal political parties are willful codefendants.
We agree this is a catastrophe, but I don't think that media and the liberal political parties are willful codefendants.
One would think then I saw an NYT article that basically went up for bat for RFK jr. and danced entirely around his rhetoric on research cuts. So that ship is certainly lost at this point.
I think there is a need to distinguish between AGs who write such letters and party organizations (i.e., democrats) that have allowed corruption such as insider trading within their ranks. A non-complicit to oligarchy democrat party would never have allowed nancy pelosi to be a completely unchecked insider trader.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
"Hungry for the Power"
You guys are lucky to have biology on your side.
Statistically, Trump will be in charge for about 10 years max, before the Grimm Reaper creates a power vacuum. (I can't wait for his creative interpretation of the 22st.)
At this point, options will be open again.
May some real lawyers have a jab at this.
Good luck.
Statistically, Trump will be in charge for about 10 years max, before the Grimm Reaper creates a power vacuum. (I can't wait for his creative interpretation of the 22st.)
At this point, options will be open again.
May some real lawyers have a jab at this.
Good luck.
In many other countries people would take to the streets and protest until they get a new government if something like this happened.
Perhaps you should try it?
Perhaps you should try it?
Yes! Where are the mass protests? Take some inspiration from Serbia: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/01/student-led-pr....
I have been asking myself: what needs to happen until US citizens wake up and finally take it to the streets? In countries like Iran or Syria people have been protesting despite the danger of being tortured and/or killed. People in the US do not need to fear any of that, so what's holding them back?
I have been asking myself: what needs to happen until US citizens wake up and finally take it to the streets? In countries like Iran or Syria people have been protesting despite the danger of being tortured and/or killed. People in the US do not need to fear any of that, so what's holding them back?
10 years of indoctrination via social media and Fox News is holding them back, unfortunately
To be clear, I'm mostly talking about the people who did not vote for Trump.
fjjjrjj(4)
Terr_(2)
redcobra762(3)
IFeelPaine(2)
casenmgreen(6)
mychael(3)
johnsimer(1)
calebm(1)
I think it's highly likely that the Democratic party will never govern the United States again.
Every single move the current government is making increasingly seems to be a clever way to stack the chips in their favor in perpetuity.
We seem to be living though the backstory of how some far-off sci-fi civilization came to be, replete with greedy tech corps in the ears and pockets of narcissistic leaders.
The irony is that it's impossible to say if this will ultimately play out as a dystopian horror or a utopian fantasy.
Every single move the current government is making increasingly seems to be a clever way to stack the chips in their favor in perpetuity.
We seem to be living though the backstory of how some far-off sci-fi civilization came to be, replete with greedy tech corps in the ears and pockets of narcissistic leaders.
The irony is that it's impossible to say if this will ultimately play out as a dystopian horror or a utopian fantasy.
It's an open question whether elections will be held, but demographics also make it much harder for Democrats to be elected after 2030 (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/democrats-future-crisi...).
>I think it's highly likely that the Democratic party will never govern the United States again.
I think they will when climate change comes knocking (I'm assuming the US will double down on carbon for some incredible short-term profit). Or at least some version of the democrats i.e. whatever is on the other side.
I think they will when climate change comes knocking (I'm assuming the US will double down on carbon for some incredible short-term profit). Or at least some version of the democrats i.e. whatever is on the other side.
Propaganda via Xitter successfully got the orange turd elected and the propaganda machine will only get worse (TikTok, deep fakes etc).
Democrats will never hold the presidency again. At best they will occasionally get the House, and I'm not sure until when that still will be a possibility.
all during covid and the biden admin we couldnt talk about any politics here. what a bunch of poppycock.
[flagged]
What corruption? Firing the inspector generals and making up claims don’t count as receipts.
It's the equivalent of the cops pulling you over and using a slightly dim tail light to search your entire car, make you get out, spread your legs, and get a pat-down.
Every large government department in every country in the world has some waste. All of them. All of the time.
This is why it's so disingenuous for Trump/Musk supporters to point at tiny bits of waste or whatever and scream "See! See! We found it! They deserve what they got!"
It's not coincidentally one of the justifications used by Russia to invade Ukraine. They claimed they were after Nazis. So what if Ukraine has Nazis!? So does every other damned European country! American has Nazis! Russia has Nazis!
It's the drill sergeant making you do 100 push ups because there was a barely visible scratch on your boots. His boots have scratches too. That's not the point. It's an excuse to make you jump.
My advice is: Any time anyone uses such a claim, or anything like it, always ask yourself: Okay, but what is the base rate for this thing they've suddenly decided is objectionable? Is it higher or lower elsewhere?
Every large government department in every country in the world has some waste. All of them. All of the time.
This is why it's so disingenuous for Trump/Musk supporters to point at tiny bits of waste or whatever and scream "See! See! We found it! They deserve what they got!"
It's not coincidentally one of the justifications used by Russia to invade Ukraine. They claimed they were after Nazis. So what if Ukraine has Nazis!? So does every other damned European country! American has Nazis! Russia has Nazis!
It's the drill sergeant making you do 100 push ups because there was a barely visible scratch on your boots. His boots have scratches too. That's not the point. It's an excuse to make you jump.
My advice is: Any time anyone uses such a claim, or anything like it, always ask yourself: Okay, but what is the base rate for this thing they've suddenly decided is objectionable? Is it higher or lower elsewhere?
Elon Musk's people have been remarkably bad at finding real examples of waste. Their hit rate is extremely low - almost everything they publicize turns out to be wrong.
You'd think they'd be able to scour the Federal budget and find a few real examples of waste to crow about, but instead they give us things like: $50 million in condoms sent to Gaza so that Hamas can make bombs??? And of course, that instantly turned out to be fake news.
You'd think they'd be able to scour the Federal budget and find a few real examples of waste to crow about, but instead they give us things like: $50 million in condoms sent to Gaza so that Hamas can make bombs??? And of course, that instantly turned out to be fake news.
If you want some referenced substance with that:
DOGE Claimed It Saved $8 Billion in One Contract. It Was Actually $8 Million
The biggest single line item on the website of Elon Musk’s cost-cutting team appears to include an error.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/18/upshot/doge-contracts-mus...
All the same, try not being distracted by the smoke and noise of the circus, it's all just a massive dead cat on the table to distract while other quieter changes are made.
DOGE Claimed It Saved $8 Billion in One Contract. It Was Actually $8 Million
The biggest single line item on the website of Elon Musk’s cost-cutting team appears to include an error.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/18/upshot/doge-contracts-mus...
All the same, try not being distracted by the smoke and noise of the circus, it's all just a massive dead cat on the table to distract while other quieter changes are made.
Didn’t we decide to not talk here about US politics?
[deleted]
However this part of the EO is pretty concerning
> 'The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch'
and later
> 'No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law'
This can potentially enable an end run around congress and the courts in that the President can easily choose to interpret laws in a manner inconsistent with the intent of congress and courts. Now, we can argue the point and say that presidents have already done so in the past and that congress/courts should have been more specific. However it quickly gets into the issue of the impossibility of congress or the courts anticipating and specifying every detail to avoid a 'hostile' interpretation.
This part of the EO says the president's opinion is the law as far as the executive branch is concerned. Given that the executive branch implements the law, this would imply that the president's interpretation is all that matters. The other two branches have no real role left to play. Given the supreme court's ruling on presidential immunity, this is a dangerous level of power concentration.
Even if you support the current president's goals and objectives, setting up the president as the sole power center is an inherently unstable system. Nothing prevents the next president from having a radically different opinion. There is a very good reason why the founding fathers built in an elaborate system of checks and balances.