7 ms·

I think that’s a little unfair. The executive branch has always taken more and more power. Obama was guiltily of it. Bush was guilty of it. And nearly every pre

I think that’s a little unfair. The executive branch has always taken more and more power. Obama was guiltily of it. Bush was guilty of it. And nearly every president before them. The expansion of executive powers us usually makes sense to the party in power, and doesn’t make sense to the minority party. But there was always an understanding that everyone was a rational actor with these powers. No one ever stopped and asked what would happen if someone a little more irrational now had these expanded powers.

munificent 6y ago
> The executive branch has always taken more and more power. No, the judicial and legislative branches have ceded it. The whole point of checks and balances is the tacit understanding that each branch will naturally grow as much power as it can and it is the responsibility of the other branches to check it. Blaming the executive branch for growing its power is like blaming the seller for high prices in a free market — the system is designed presuming competition and selfish behavior.
- loopz 6y ago
  Yet it happens and the system fails when last altruism and principles are erased. The same demons blame the victims.
- opo 6y ago
  >No, the judicial and legislative branches have ceded it. Well, it is the executive branch that chooses the supreme court... For every John Marshall there has been on the court, there is likely a Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr with his famous quote “If my fellow citizens want to go to Hell I will help them. It’s my job.”.
  - enraged_camel 6y ago
    >>Well, it is the executive branch chooses the supreme court... And the Senate that confirms the nominees.
    - rootusrootus 6y ago
      And really as a practical matter the senate chooses the nominees too. We don't have a Justice Garland.
      - cheald 6y ago
        Or a Justice Bork, for that matter.
        rootusrootus 6y ago
        At least they voted.
- chiefalchemist 6y ago
  Yes and no. More and more there's less legislation and more executive orders. Perhaps we need a limit on number of executive orders per term?
- mumblemumble 6y ago
  It's just possible that the system of checks and balances that was designed by a bunch of people who were pretty much new to this, and who didn't anticipate the development of the two-party system, didn't actually turn out to be in a state of perfect equilibrium that would last for centuries upon centuries. Frankly, I think we should be impressed. It's a borderline miracle that it's survived as well as it has.
  - ryebit 6y ago
    > ... and who didn't anticipate the development of the two-party system ... Actually they did. The Federalist papers contained some strong warnings that we must strive to prevent factions / parties from taking over. They were painfully aware it was a potential failure mode in the system they were designing.
    - willis936 6y ago
      It was honestly naive to believe that hopes and wishes would mean anything in fifty years. There are solutions that increase democratic representation. I have heard arguments against these solutions. All of the arguments have been bad.
    - XorNot 6y ago
      The problem was that electoral system in the US takes no steps to mitigate the issue. Without a preferential voting system of any kind, there's no possible way to have anything other then 2 viable parties, and an attempt to create a third rewards whichever side has a more entrenched voting block. It also robs the US of a signalling mechanism: there's no way for the Republicans or Democrats to see that they didn't get primary vote share and only recovered it after specific-issue or more focused parties dropped out. The US desperately needs preferential voting and mandatory voting. The default supposition of the US has to be that there must be exceptional circumstances as to why any individual did not vote.
      - toomanybeersies 6y ago
        Australia has both preferential and mandatory voting, and the end result isn't much better. It's still a two-party system, but then there are also single-issue or hardline minor parties who often have the ability to hold the government hostage on their demands.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
refurb 6y ago
Obama was guiltily of it. Bush was guilty of it. Exactly. I can remember when Obama was using procedural rules to force things though. The response was "if you do it, you can't complain when the other party does it when they are in power".
Enginerrrd 6y ago
>No one ever stopped and asked what would happen if someone a little more irrational now had these expanded powers. Now that's just deeply wrong. People have been complaining about this my entire life. I was 12 when the PATRIOT act came into being and I remember people pointing out all the deeply unamerican ways it could be used, and then later all the ways that it was in fact being abused. I've been complaining about consolidation of power in the executive branch my entire politically conscious life. And right now on HN there are people constantly complaining about the overreaches of surveillance under the belief that they will all be abused one day. This isn't a surprise.

munificent 6y ago

> The executive branch has always taken more and more power. No, the judicial and legislative branches have ceded it. The whole point of checks and balances is the tacit understanding that each branch will naturally grow as much power as it can and it is the responsibility of the other branches to check it. Blaming the executive branch for growing its power is like blaming the seller for high prices in a free market — the system is designed presuming competition and selfish behavior.

loopz 6y ago
Yet it happens and the system fails when last altruism and principles are erased. The same demons blame the victims.
opo 6y ago
>No, the judicial and legislative branches have ceded it. Well, it is the executive branch that chooses the supreme court... For every John Marshall there has been on the court, there is likely a Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr with his famous quote “If my fellow citizens want to go to Hell I will help them. It’s my job.”.
- enraged_camel 6y ago
  >>Well, it is the executive branch chooses the supreme court... And the Senate that confirms the nominees.
  - rootusrootus 6y ago
    And really as a practical matter the senate chooses the nominees too. We don't have a Justice Garland.
    - cheald 6y ago
      Or a Justice Bork, for that matter.
      - rootusrootus 6y ago
        At least they voted.
chiefalchemist 6y ago
Yes and no. More and more there's less legislation and more executive orders. Perhaps we need a limit on number of executive orders per term?
mumblemumble 6y ago
It's just possible that the system of checks and balances that was designed by a bunch of people who were pretty much new to this, and who didn't anticipate the development of the two-party system, didn't actually turn out to be in a state of perfect equilibrium that would last for centuries upon centuries. Frankly, I think we should be impressed. It's a borderline miracle that it's survived as well as it has.
- ryebit 6y ago
  > ... and who didn't anticipate the development of the two-party system ... Actually they did. The Federalist papers contained some strong warnings that we must strive to prevent factions / parties from taking over. They were painfully aware it was a potential failure mode in the system they were designing.
  - willis936 6y ago
    It was honestly naive to believe that hopes and wishes would mean anything in fifty years. There are solutions that increase democratic representation. I have heard arguments against these solutions. All of the arguments have been bad.
  - XorNot 6y ago
    The problem was that electoral system in the US takes no steps to mitigate the issue. Without a preferential voting system of any kind, there's no possible way to have anything other then 2 viable parties, and an attempt to create a third rewards whichever side has a more entrenched voting block. It also robs the US of a signalling mechanism: there's no way for the Republicans or Democrats to see that they didn't get primary vote share and only recovered it after specific-issue or more focused parties dropped out. The US desperately needs preferential voting and mandatory voting. The default supposition of the US has to be that there must be exceptional circumstances as to why any individual did not vote.
    - toomanybeersies 6y ago
      Australia has both preferential and mandatory voting, and the end result isn't much better. It's still a two-party system, but then there are also single-issue or hardline minor parties who often have the ability to hold the government hostage on their demands.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

refurb 6y ago

Obama was guiltily of it. Bush was guilty of it. Exactly. I can remember when Obama was using procedural rules to force things though. The response was "if you do it, you can't complain when the other party does it when they are in power".

Enginerrrd 6y ago

>No one ever stopped and asked what would happen if someone a little more irrational now had these expanded powers. Now that's just deeply wrong. People have been complaining about this my entire life. I was 12 when the PATRIOT act came into being and I remember people pointing out all the deeply unamerican ways it could be used, and then later all the ways that it was in fact being abused. I've been complaining about consolidation of power in the executive branch my entire politically conscious life. And right now on HN there are people constantly complaining about the overreaches of surveillance under the belief that they will all be abused one day. This isn't a surprise.