5 ms·

> As president, my most important job is to keep the American people safe The author, er, the President is incorrect. His most important job is to preserve, pr

> As president, my most important job is to keep the American people safe The author, er, the President is incorrect. His most important job is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. He says this constantly, and, politics aside, it is important for every American to remember what the actual duty of the President is, as affirmed when sworn into office. Side note: Why is this on HN?

akiselev 11y ago
Because according to the guidelines: 》 On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. (Emphasis mine) If it's on the front page, enough people have found it interesting and within the guidelines.
- ojbyrne 11y ago
  More concretely, The US Prison System is clearly broken and doing great harm. It's an obvious opportunity for making things better, which can lead to entrepreneurial opportunities.
  - lowmagnet 11y ago
    I don't know about that. Thus far, those "entrepreneurial opportunities" have lead toward more incarceration, not less. For-profit prisons have contracts that guarantee a certain level of incarceration, resulting in occupancy of the prisons they run. This is definitely one of those things that I'd much rather not be in the hands of entrepreneurial entities.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      Here's a counterexample: https://pigeon.ly https://pigeon.ly They're focused on making it easier and cheaper to communicate with inmates, who often suffer from ridiculous price gouging for things like phone calls. It's pretty small potatoes compared to private prisons, but it's something.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - krapp 11y ago
    I suppose by definition, if someone finds a story interesting, that makes them a "good hacker."
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
rayiner 11y ago
While I appreciate the point you're trying to make, I don't think it's accurate. You're quoting the Presidential Oath, which reads: > I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Note the order: first responsibility is to execute the office, the second is to protect the Constitution. The responsibilities of the Office of the President are laid out in Article II of the Constitution, starting with Section 2. The very first one is: "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[.]" It's not unreasonable for him to say his most important job is to keep America safe. Indeed, the historical evidence shows that one reason the Constitution created a strong executive (where the Articles of Confederation had no executive), is because the failure of the government under the Articles to quell certain internal rebellions.
- Steko 11y ago
  Just as relevant is the vesting clause that begins Article II: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America This executive power is the vehicle by which various acts of legislation which "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" (I.8) take effect.
- laotzu 11y ago
  The founding fathers had a lot to say about a strong executive who is primarily interested in providing security as opposed to liberty and its inevitable corruption: >In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. -James Madison, Speech at Constitutional Convention, 1787 >A politic minister will study to lull us into security, by granting us the full extent of our petitions. The warm sunshine of influence would melt down the virtue, which the violence of the storm rendered more firm and unyielding. In a state of tranquillity, wealth and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts of war, and the noble activity and zeal which made their ancestors invincible. Every art of corruption would be employed to loosen the bond of union which renders our assistance formidable. When the spirit of liberty which now animates our hearts and gives success to our arms is extinct, our numbers will accelerate our ruin, and render us easier victims to tyranny. Ye abandoned minions of an infatuated ministry, if peradventure any should yet remain among us!—remember that a Warren and Montgomery are numbered among the dead. Contemplate the mangled bodies of our countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices ? Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood, and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude, than the animating contest of freedom—go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. -Samuel Adams, American Independence Speech, 1776
notdonspaulding 11y ago
I'd like to say I read that line in disbelief that the POTUS could so completely misunderstand his own role in our government, but at this point, I'm afraid I'm used to it. (For those not from the U.S.: The way it's supposed to work is that Congress makes the law, the President executes the law, the Court upholds the law)
- ggreer 11y ago
  From The American System and Misleading Labels[1]: > Brad Templeton, chairman of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, was present; and he said: "The legal status of AIs is ultimately a legislative question, and in the American system of democracy, legislative questions are decided by the Supreme Court." > Much laughter followed. We all knew it was true. (And Brad has taken a case or two to the Supreme Court, so he was speaking from experience.) The whole post is worth reading. It's a little dated and a lot oversimplified, but it drives home a useful point: just because something is named X, that doesn't mean it has anything to do with X. 1. http://lesswrong.com/lw/mh/the_american_system_and_misleading_labels/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/mh/the_american_system_and_misleadin...
voynich61 11y ago
Your comment is pedantic. A school bus driver's job is to get kids from their homes to school and back. If she says her most important job is to keep the kids safe, it doesn't mean that she's not going to do her job! Instead, it means that she'll do her job in such a way that it keeps her safe, and in no way implies a conflict of interest between her job description and safety.
- jMyles 11y ago
  If that's so - and it may well be - then it is different in kind from this matter, where "safety" and liberty are, and have been, in conflict. The job of the POTUS has little do with safety, but much to do with liberty.
- notdonspaulding 11y ago
  The POTUS is using this "my job is to keep Americans safe" line to make a very tenuous tie to a position he wants to take on solitary confinement. Using your analogy, imagine the bus driver said "It's my job to keep the kids safe, therefore I'm going to start requiring all the kids to give me their cell phone numbers in case there's an emergency." Could that be construed as "keeping the kids safe"? Sure, but that wouldn't necessarily make you any more comfortable with the bus driver gaining more intimate access to your children. I know analogies are never perfect, but another nitpick with this one is that the POTUS holds a position of power and authority that you wouldn't typically have to worry about in your average bus driver, so additional scrutiny into "Just what did he mean by that?" is occasionally warranted.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - voynich61 11y ago
    Justifying the move as a step to keep America safe is the right move in this political context. America is generally fearful right now, so Obama's political adversaries will attack this move as eroding the safety the prison system attempts to maintain. "My job is to keep Americans safe" is an acceptable justification for limiting solitary confinement. It would not be an acceptable justification for extrajudicial killings.
r00fus 11y ago
I'd bet a good portion of the HN reader base has had an uncomfortable police encounter. Also the prospect of going to jail for hacking or whistleblowing crimes is pretty harrowing - look what happened to Aaron Swartz. Yeah, I'd say it's relevant to discuss here.
- username223 11y ago
  > I'd bet a good portion of the HN reader base has had an uncomfortable police encounter. Rich, white tech dudes? I doubt it. Even if they have, a bit of mouthing "sorry, Officer" probably solved the problem.
  - int_handler 11y ago
    Yeah, just saying, "sorry, Officer," obviously solved the problem for Aaron Swartz.
    - 1stop 11y ago
      Yeah, one privileged guy had problems and everyone remembers it forever... Isn't really comparable to the thousands of underpribileged who's lives are just as tragically ruined...
      - int_handler 11y ago
        Nobody is discounting the problem of police brutality for the thousands of underprivileged. Acknowledging that problem should not mean that we should simply ignore other forms judicial overreach, such as the abuse of the CFAA in Aaron Swartz's case. Both are major problems that need to be discussed. Keep in mind that another major reason people remember Aaron Swartz because of everything he has contributed to the world of technology [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz#Life_and_works https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz#Life_and_works
        1stop 11y ago
galago 11y ago
Perhaps its a limitation of our form of democracy, but if voters think the presidents job 'is to keep the American people safe' and they vote in said direction--well, that's the de-facto job. If the president is comfortable outright saying that his effective job is not the one legally defined, that's kind-of a HN topic in itself.
jhancock 11y ago
The U.S. Constitution is structured in traditional contract form. It starts with stating its purpose (preamble) and continues with rules to support methods of execution of purpose. It is not unreasonable that a U.S. President may consider these recent statements as fitting to "...promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."

akiselev 11y ago

Because according to the guidelines: 》 On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. (Emphasis mine) If it's on the front page, enough people have found it interesting and within the guidelines.

ojbyrne 11y ago
More concretely, The US Prison System is clearly broken and doing great harm. It's an obvious opportunity for making things better, which can lead to entrepreneurial opportunities.
- lowmagnet 11y ago
  I don't know about that. Thus far, those "entrepreneurial opportunities" have lead toward more incarceration, not less. For-profit prisons have contracts that guarantee a certain level of incarceration, resulting in occupancy of the prisons they run. This is definitely one of those things that I'd much rather not be in the hands of entrepreneurial entities.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Here's a counterexample: https://pigeon.ly https://pigeon.ly They're focused on making it easier and cheaper to communicate with inmates, who often suffer from ridiculous price gouging for things like phone calls. It's pretty small potatoes compared to private prisons, but it's something.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- krapp 11y ago
  I suppose by definition, if someone finds a story interesting, that makes them a "good hacker."
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

rayiner 11y ago

While I appreciate the point you're trying to make, I don't think it's accurate. You're quoting the Presidential Oath, which reads: > I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Note the order: first responsibility is to execute the office, the second is to protect the Constitution. The responsibilities of the Office of the President are laid out in Article II of the Constitution, starting with Section 2. The very first one is: "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[.]" It's not unreasonable for him to say his most important job is to keep America safe. Indeed, the historical evidence shows that one reason the Constitution created a strong executive (where the Articles of Confederation had no executive), is because the failure of the government under the Articles to quell certain internal rebellions.

Steko 11y ago
Just as relevant is the vesting clause that begins Article II: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America This executive power is the vehicle by which various acts of legislation which "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" (I.8) take effect.
laotzu 11y ago
The founding fathers had a lot to say about a strong executive who is primarily interested in providing security as opposed to liberty and its inevitable corruption: >In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. -James Madison, Speech at Constitutional Convention, 1787 >A politic minister will study to lull us into security, by granting us the full extent of our petitions. The warm sunshine of influence would melt down the virtue, which the violence of the storm rendered more firm and unyielding. In a state of tranquillity, wealth and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts of war, and the noble activity and zeal which made their ancestors invincible. Every art of corruption would be employed to loosen the bond of union which renders our assistance formidable. When the spirit of liberty which now animates our hearts and gives success to our arms is extinct, our numbers will accelerate our ruin, and render us easier victims to tyranny. Ye abandoned minions of an infatuated ministry, if peradventure any should yet remain among us!—remember that a Warren and Montgomery are numbered among the dead. Contemplate the mangled bodies of our countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices ? Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood, and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude, than the animating contest of freedom—go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. -Samuel Adams, American Independence Speech, 1776

notdonspaulding 11y ago

I'd like to say I read that line in disbelief that the POTUS could so completely misunderstand his own role in our government, but at this point, I'm afraid I'm used to it. (For those not from the U.S.: The way it's supposed to work is that Congress makes the law, the President executes the law, the Court upholds the law)

ggreer 11y ago
From The American System and Misleading Labels[1]: > Brad Templeton, chairman of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, was present; and he said: "The legal status of AIs is ultimately a legislative question, and in the American system of democracy, legislative questions are decided by the Supreme Court." > Much laughter followed. We all knew it was true. (And Brad has taken a case or two to the Supreme Court, so he was speaking from experience.) The whole post is worth reading. It's a little dated and a lot oversimplified, but it drives home a useful point: just because something is named X, that doesn't mean it has anything to do with X. 1. http://lesswrong.com/lw/mh/the_american_system_and_misleading_labels/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/mh/the_american_system_and_misleadin...

voynich61 11y ago

Your comment is pedantic. A school bus driver's job is to get kids from their homes to school and back. If she says her most important job is to keep the kids safe, it doesn't mean that she's not going to do her job! Instead, it means that she'll do her job in such a way that it keeps her safe, and in no way implies a conflict of interest between her job description and safety.

jMyles 11y ago
If that's so - and it may well be - then it is different in kind from this matter, where "safety" and liberty are, and have been, in conflict. The job of the POTUS has little do with safety, but much to do with liberty.
notdonspaulding 11y ago
The POTUS is using this "my job is to keep Americans safe" line to make a very tenuous tie to a position he wants to take on solitary confinement. Using your analogy, imagine the bus driver said "It's my job to keep the kids safe, therefore I'm going to start requiring all the kids to give me their cell phone numbers in case there's an emergency." Could that be construed as "keeping the kids safe"? Sure, but that wouldn't necessarily make you any more comfortable with the bus driver gaining more intimate access to your children. I know analogies are never perfect, but another nitpick with this one is that the POTUS holds a position of power and authority that you wouldn't typically have to worry about in your average bus driver, so additional scrutiny into "Just what did he mean by that?" is occasionally warranted.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- voynich61 11y ago
  Justifying the move as a step to keep America safe is the right move in this political context. America is generally fearful right now, so Obama's political adversaries will attack this move as eroding the safety the prison system attempts to maintain. "My job is to keep Americans safe" is an acceptable justification for limiting solitary confinement. It would not be an acceptable justification for extrajudicial killings.

r00fus 11y ago

I'd bet a good portion of the HN reader base has had an uncomfortable police encounter. Also the prospect of going to jail for hacking or whistleblowing crimes is pretty harrowing - look what happened to Aaron Swartz. Yeah, I'd say it's relevant to discuss here.

username223 11y ago
> I'd bet a good portion of the HN reader base has had an uncomfortable police encounter. Rich, white tech dudes? I doubt it. Even if they have, a bit of mouthing "sorry, Officer" probably solved the problem.
- int_handler 11y ago
  Yeah, just saying, "sorry, Officer," obviously solved the problem for Aaron Swartz.
  - 1stop 11y ago
    Yeah, one privileged guy had problems and everyone remembers it forever... Isn't really comparable to the thousands of underpribileged who's lives are just as tragically ruined...
    - int_handler 11y ago
      Nobody is discounting the problem of police brutality for the thousands of underprivileged. Acknowledging that problem should not mean that we should simply ignore other forms judicial overreach, such as the abuse of the CFAA in Aaron Swartz's case. Both are major problems that need to be discussed. Keep in mind that another major reason people remember Aaron Swartz because of everything he has contributed to the world of technology [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz#Life_and_works https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz#Life_and_works
      - 1stop 11y ago

galago 11y ago

Perhaps its a limitation of our form of democracy, but if voters think the presidents job 'is to keep the American people safe' and they vote in said direction--well, that's the de-facto job. If the president is comfortable outright saying that his effective job is not the one legally defined, that's kind-of a HN topic in itself.

jhancock 11y ago

The U.S. Constitution is structured in traditional contract form. It starts with stating its purpose (preamble) and continues with rules to support methods of execution of purpose. It is not unreasonable that a U.S. President may consider these recent statements as fitting to "...promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."