4 ms·

Great use of an executive order, the executive branch is so big that having no directives from the CEO is an odd way to run an organization that large Overwhel

Great use of an executive order, the executive branch is so big that having no directives from the CEO is an odd way to run an organization that large Overwhelming even I dont think the constitution envisioned how big of an organization the executive branch is, all with independent sweeping rule making autonomy. Only industry enthusiasts know the specifics of one agency’s depth of rules. Someone elected by the people for totally unrelated reasons has no way of knowing everything these agencies are influencing

swalsh 7y ago
Is it though? I totally support the idea of the action, but it really feels like it should have come from congress. They are supposed to be the law makers. It feels like everytime congress fails, and we have to resort to executive actions to do every day legislation more power is being ceded to the executive branch.
- rolltiide 7y ago
  The executive order doesn't do what the headline says, it instructs the relevant agencies to create rules within their power I feel like your response is copy pasted for any use of an EO
- swagasaurus-rex 7y ago
  The consequence for two parties that refuse to cooperate – a shift of power from the squabbling rabble, towards a winner takes all direct leadership. I don't think anybody wins in this event
boapnuaput 7y ago
The president is not a CEO; the executive branch is not a corporation. [0] Moreover, the executive branch does not need to be "run" from the top; instead, it operates in a distributed and semi-autonomous fashion. Think not of the Cartesian brain, but the octopus. The Constitution outlines specific responsibilities of the President in Article Two. [1] Those responsibilities: * Command the armed forces * Have a Cabinet (have the heads of subbranches as direct reports) * Conduct foreign diplomacy * Give State-of-the-Union addresses * Not be bad at carrying out the will of the law; "faithfully execute" whatever the law tells them to do * Get impeached if Congress says so There are some things that the President is enabled to do at a whim, but they are not as broad as you'd think: * Issue pardons * Appoint judges, diplomats, etc. with Congress's approval * Call special sessions of Congress I agree that, in order to be aware of the full nature of the law, the President needs to be surrounded with legal professionals who can advise them on how to not violate the law. But, in Article Two, it's clearly spelled out that the President should have a Cabinet in order to delegate day-to-day responsibilities further. Finally, as a reminder, the President wasn't supposed to be chosen by the people, but by the Electoral College. [2] The Presidency should not be a popularity contest. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism#Fascist_corporatism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism#Fascist_corporatis... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_Stat... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_Colleg...
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  >The Presidency should not be a popularity contest. Correct. Well, I mean, popular among the states, but not the people individually. I'm stunned how this is a difficult concept for people. I'd bet the people arguing for popular vote would change their mind in a hot second if LA and NYC went red.
  - rolltiide 7y ago
    Honestly, people just have disdain of the south. The whole union's representative model is bent over backwards to keep consensus with the south eastern US for reasons that have little relevance this century, but are impossible to change. The electoral college is from when there were 800,000 free white males in all the original states (US 1790 census), and the union still felt like it needed Georgia and South Carolina to agree to be a part of this contract for strategic reasons. I wonder how many of them were literate land owners! Is that relevant today? Is ANY of that relevant today? Many other countries looked at the electoral college over the last 250 years and saw how it was a strategic compromise masqueraded as a feature. They decided not to do it and stick with popularity contests.
    - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
      Are you sure the EC isn't relevant now? DO other countries not use it because they are not a collection of geographically / culturally / and relatively-recently separate states that have united so there is little reason to adopt a system that fairly treats unique states in relation to a larger unified federal body? The people vote in thier states, the states vote for the president. Without it, all 48 other states get railroaded by the 2 with the highest population. We have a representative democracy because that's not fair. You may even think you want NYC and LA to pick the president every year, but you don't. For reference [0] I think you're going to have a bad time if you tell the people outside of NYC and LA that their voice, concerns, representation is totally irrelevant. We don't have a perfect system, but we have one that's been working for 240-some years. [0] https://kingsjester.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/election-2016-county-map.png https://kingsjester.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/election-201...

swalsh 7y ago

Is it though? I totally support the idea of the action, but it really feels like it should have come from congress. They are supposed to be the law makers. It feels like everytime congress fails, and we have to resort to executive actions to do every day legislation more power is being ceded to the executive branch.

rolltiide 7y ago
The executive order doesn't do what the headline says, it instructs the relevant agencies to create rules within their power I feel like your response is copy pasted for any use of an EO
swagasaurus-rex 7y ago
The consequence for two parties that refuse to cooperate – a shift of power from the squabbling rabble, towards a winner takes all direct leadership. I don't think anybody wins in this event

boapnuaput 7y ago

The president is not a CEO; the executive branch is not a corporation. [0] Moreover, the executive branch does not need to be "run" from the top; instead, it operates in a distributed and semi-autonomous fashion. Think not of the Cartesian brain, but the octopus. The Constitution outlines specific responsibilities of the President in Article Two. [1] Those responsibilities: * Command the armed forces * Have a Cabinet (have the heads of subbranches as direct reports) * Conduct foreign diplomacy * Give State-of-the-Union addresses * Not be bad at carrying out the will of the law; "faithfully execute" whatever the law tells them to do * Get impeached if Congress says so There are some things that the President is enabled to do at a whim, but they are not as broad as you'd think: * Issue pardons * Appoint judges, diplomats, etc. with Congress's approval * Call special sessions of Congress I agree that, in order to be aware of the full nature of the law, the President needs to be surrounded with legal professionals who can advise them on how to not violate the law. But, in Article Two, it's clearly spelled out that the President should have a Cabinet in order to delegate day-to-day responsibilities further. Finally, as a reminder, the President wasn't supposed to be chosen by the people, but by the Electoral College. [2] The Presidency should not be a popularity contest. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism#Fascist_corporatism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism#Fascist_corporatis... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_Stat... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_Colleg...

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
>The Presidency should not be a popularity contest. Correct. Well, I mean, popular among the states, but not the people individually. I'm stunned how this is a difficult concept for people. I'd bet the people arguing for popular vote would change their mind in a hot second if LA and NYC went red.
- rolltiide 7y ago
  Honestly, people just have disdain of the south. The whole union's representative model is bent over backwards to keep consensus with the south eastern US for reasons that have little relevance this century, but are impossible to change. The electoral college is from when there were 800,000 free white males in all the original states (US 1790 census), and the union still felt like it needed Georgia and South Carolina to agree to be a part of this contract for strategic reasons. I wonder how many of them were literate land owners! Is that relevant today? Is ANY of that relevant today? Many other countries looked at the electoral college over the last 250 years and saw how it was a strategic compromise masqueraded as a feature. They decided not to do it and stick with popularity contests.
  - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
    Are you sure the EC isn't relevant now? DO other countries not use it because they are not a collection of geographically / culturally / and relatively-recently separate states that have united so there is little reason to adopt a system that fairly treats unique states in relation to a larger unified federal body? The people vote in thier states, the states vote for the president. Without it, all 48 other states get railroaded by the 2 with the highest population. We have a representative democracy because that's not fair. You may even think you want NYC and LA to pick the president every year, but you don't. For reference [0] I think you're going to have a bad time if you tell the people outside of NYC and LA that their voice, concerns, representation is totally irrelevant. We don't have a perfect system, but we have one that's been working for 240-some years. [0] https://kingsjester.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/election-2016-county-map.png https://kingsjester.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/election-201...