4 ms·

Where is the line between "Check to prevent abuse" and "Roadblock that stops any meaningful change"?

mseebach 10y ago
Congress legislates, president implements. The president isn't where "meaningful change" should come from. Hence 'king-complex'.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  And Congress frequently legislates to delegate - entirely in accordance with the Constitution, which is why article II section 2.1 contemplate the President 'requir[ing] 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.' Clearly, the framers contemplated the existence of Departments within the executive branch, whose Officers held Opinions about things within their purview, as opposed to being mindless robots. A great deal of legislation sets the scope and limits of such departmental authority, while directing the departments to engage in a more detailed rulemaking process of their own as opposed to everything being micromanaged by Congress. You keep making normative statements that describe your personal political views, but I can't help noticing that you're not citing any provisions in the Constitution to back up your argument. I'm thus unsure whether you are talking about your view of the Constitution's meaning or some other scheme of governance with which you'd like to replace the existing one.
nostrademons 10y ago
They are two sides of the same coin - the only difference is which side you're standing on. Same way that the patriots who started the American Revolution would've been labeled terrorists had they failed. From the POV of the government itself though, the primary imperative - stronger than one policy prescription - is continued existence. And to ensure continued existence, a government needs to let through change that, if repressed, would bring down the government, while also preventing change so radical and so permanent that it destroys the government on its own.
anigbrowl 10y ago
When you have large numbers of people claiming to be dead against things that they were previously in favor of, it might be that they're being hypocritical and obstructive. Obvious examples that come to mind are Obamacare (modeled on a plan originated by Mitt romney as governor of Massachusetts), Syria (where the Congress refused to authorize US military action in Syria and then spent the next several years blaming Obama for being soft on ISIS in Syria), Merrick Garland (who everyone agreed to be a great judge until Obama nominated him to the Supreme Court, at which point the Senate abrogated it's Constitutional duty to advice the President by refusing to even hold a hearing for his nominee). Republicans have repeatedly gone on record in public statements about the totality of their opposition to Obama regardless of policy considerations. Allow me to refer you to the paper cited here for some objective demonstration of the increasing polarization of US politics and its acceleration in recent years: http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2015/04/24/political_partisanship_in_three_stunning_charts_109196.html http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2015/04/24/poli...

Congress legislates, president implements. The president isn't where "meaningful change" should come from. Hence 'king-complex'.

anigbrowl 10y ago
And Congress frequently legislates to delegate - entirely in accordance with the Constitution, which is why article II section 2.1 contemplate the President 'requir[ing] 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.' Clearly, the framers contemplated the existence of Departments within the executive branch, whose Officers held Opinions about things within their purview, as opposed to being mindless robots. A great deal of legislation sets the scope and limits of such departmental authority, while directing the departments to engage in a more detailed rulemaking process of their own as opposed to everything being micromanaged by Congress. You keep making normative statements that describe your personal political views, but I can't help noticing that you're not citing any provisions in the Constitution to back up your argument. I'm thus unsure whether you are talking about your view of the Constitution's meaning or some other scheme of governance with which you'd like to replace the existing one.

nostrademons 10y ago

They are two sides of the same coin - the only difference is which side you're standing on. Same way that the patriots who started the American Revolution would've been labeled terrorists had they failed. From the POV of the government itself though, the primary imperative - stronger than one policy prescription - is continued existence. And to ensure continued existence, a government needs to let through change that, if repressed, would bring down the government, while also preventing change so radical and so permanent that it destroys the government on its own.

anigbrowl 10y ago

When you have large numbers of people claiming to be dead against things that they were previously in favor of, it might be that they're being hypocritical and obstructive. Obvious examples that come to mind are Obamacare (modeled on a plan originated by Mitt romney as governor of Massachusetts), Syria (where the Congress refused to authorize US military action in Syria and then spent the next several years blaming Obama for being soft on ISIS in Syria), Merrick Garland (who everyone agreed to be a great judge until Obama nominated him to the Supreme Court, at which point the Senate abrogated it's Constitutional duty to advice the President by refusing to even hold a hearing for his nominee). Republicans have repeatedly gone on record in public statements about the totality of their opposition to Obama regardless of policy considerations. Allow me to refer you to the paper cited here for some objective demonstration of the increasing polarization of US politics and its acceleration in recent years: http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2015/04/24/political_partisanship_in_three_stunning_charts_109196.html http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2015/04/24/poli...