3 ms·

The reaction seems to be concentrating power in the President who can "do something". The centralizing of power and erosion of the original US system has been

The reaction seems to be concentrating power in the President who can "do something". The centralizing of power and erosion of the original US system has been monotonic for the last 200 years. First they came for the states by broadening the interstate commerce clause far beyond any rational reading. And now congress has ceded its authority in key areas such as treaties (fast tracking), declarations of war, and in process now: the right to subpoena information (we'll see how this one turns out).

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
I believe 1/2 of congress is trying to subpoena information (the house) but the actual people who are responsible for obeying that subpoena are refusing to- and at the same time, those people are the people responsible to enforce any law to punish them for refusing subpoena. So they can essentially ignore congress's demands with no consequences. I think this has always been the case but hasn't happened so distinctly until now?
- jdsully 7y ago
  Congress has the power to "arrest and detain recalcitrant witnesses". The fact that this isn't being seriously considered is further evidence of the erosion of real power congress has. For an example of what this looks like refer to the Sargent at Arms arresting someone in possession of Facebook documents the UK parliament wanted: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/24/mps-seize-cache-facebook-internal-papers https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/24/mps-seize...
  - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
    So what happens if the Sargent Of Arms says no? And that the entire judiciary branch says ‘yeah we’re not gonna arrest this guy’?
colechristensen 7y ago
I think if the current situation isn't ... resolved ... resulting in a significant transfer of power either by precedent, legislation, or judicial action away from the executive to the judicial branch, the legislative branch, and the states – I think if that doesn't happen that this will be an inflection point leading to the failure of the American Republic. I think too many people take for granted the stability and continuation of a system of government.
- jdsully 7y ago
  In my opinion the parliamentary system has proven to be more effective. In this system the Prime Minister with a majority has near dictatorial control over both the legislature and the presidency so that he/she can move quickly. However the backstop is the no confidence vote which operates like impeachment. This is not a theoretical power but is exercised relatively frequently in parliamentarian systems. Failure to pass a budget is also by default a no confidence vote making it very rare one isn't passed. I think deep down the US feels that as well. The democracies they have created throughout the world do not mirror the US system of government. The problem we face today with the US centralizing power in the presidency is that impeachment is seen as a "nuclear option" and therefore is not an effective backstop.
  - colechristensen 7y ago
    Watching Brexit doesn't inspire me with confidence about parliamentary systems, and I think it would work much worse in America which has a different set of problems. The diverse societies and economies of the regions of the US would not be well represented by a winner-take-all approach – the founders had a lot to say about the dictatorship of the majority. They had good points and the problems they feared I think would be worse in the US than in many of the parliamentary governments of the world. People in the US often times have a hard time realizing that their society isn't universal. The basic problem currently in the American system is overpowered political parties which didn't fit in to the original set of checks and balances. It isn't clear if there is a simple amendment which could fix the system or if it is more of a social problem.

SolaceQuantum 7y ago

I believe 1/2 of congress is trying to subpoena information (the house) but the actual people who are responsible for obeying that subpoena are refusing to- and at the same time, those people are the people responsible to enforce any law to punish them for refusing subpoena. So they can essentially ignore congress's demands with no consequences. I think this has always been the case but hasn't happened so distinctly until now?

jdsully 7y ago
Congress has the power to "arrest and detain recalcitrant witnesses". The fact that this isn't being seriously considered is further evidence of the erosion of real power congress has. For an example of what this looks like refer to the Sargent at Arms arresting someone in possession of Facebook documents the UK parliament wanted: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/24/mps-seize-cache-facebook-internal-papers https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/24/mps-seize...
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  So what happens if the Sargent Of Arms says no? And that the entire judiciary branch says ‘yeah we’re not gonna arrest this guy’?

colechristensen 7y ago

I think if the current situation isn't ... resolved ... resulting in a significant transfer of power either by precedent, legislation, or judicial action away from the executive to the judicial branch, the legislative branch, and the states – I think if that doesn't happen that this will be an inflection point leading to the failure of the American Republic. I think too many people take for granted the stability and continuation of a system of government.

jdsully 7y ago
In my opinion the parliamentary system has proven to be more effective. In this system the Prime Minister with a majority has near dictatorial control over both the legislature and the presidency so that he/she can move quickly. However the backstop is the no confidence vote which operates like impeachment. This is not a theoretical power but is exercised relatively frequently in parliamentarian systems. Failure to pass a budget is also by default a no confidence vote making it very rare one isn't passed. I think deep down the US feels that as well. The democracies they have created throughout the world do not mirror the US system of government. The problem we face today with the US centralizing power in the presidency is that impeachment is seen as a "nuclear option" and therefore is not an effective backstop.
- colechristensen 7y ago
  Watching Brexit doesn't inspire me with confidence about parliamentary systems, and I think it would work much worse in America which has a different set of problems. The diverse societies and economies of the regions of the US would not be well represented by a winner-take-all approach – the founders had a lot to say about the dictatorship of the majority. They had good points and the problems they feared I think would be worse in the US than in many of the parliamentary governments of the world. People in the US often times have a hard time realizing that their society isn't universal. The basic problem currently in the American system is overpowered political parties which didn't fit in to the original set of checks and balances. It isn't clear if there is a simple amendment which could fix the system or if it is more of a social problem.