5 ms·

Perhaps we can push back against what is effectively legislation by the executive branch. Then, here's the tough part, don't expand executive power when your ow

by LanceH 6y ago

Perhaps we can push back against what is effectively legislation by the executive branch. Then, here's the tough part, don't expand executive power when your own party is in the white house.

inetknght 6y ago
> Perhaps we can push back against what is effectively legislation by the executive branch. By doing what? Protest?
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
I agree with the general principle, but in this case Congress can't exactly pass a bill for every project requiring environmental review. They have to delegate some authority to the executive here.
- rsynnott 6y ago
  In parliamentary democracies, this sort of thing is normally a devolved ministerial power. Of course, it’s a lot easier to get rid of a naughty minister.
- tekdude 6y ago
  I always thought the BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure) process was intuitive. Congress passed an act tasking the executive branch to pick which military bases to close, then there was a guaranteed for/against vote with minimal deliberation and no delays or Filibuster.
unclebucknasty 6y ago
>here's the tough part, don't expand executive power when your own party is in the white house. Solution to that is a functioning Congress, which requires less polarization (i.e. more compromise) and sane campaign finance laws. Term limits couldn't hurt either.
nitwit005 6y ago
It's a two party system where neither seems to care that the presidency wields too much power, so fixing it is probably in the realm of constitutional amendments at the moment.
- DetroitThrow 6y ago
  Much of the power given to the President here seems to be from legislation itself or lack of legislation altogether. I don't think there's any constitutional changes that would need to take place in order to restrict executive power on subjects like environmental regulation, emergency powers, among other things.
pstuart 6y ago
True. But the Senate is broken by being effectively owned by a single senator.
- Nas808 6y ago
  Moscow Mitch has bills to pay
- alonmower 6y ago
  Owned by a party, McConnell just takes all of the responsibility because he’s in one of the safest seats
- jude- 6y ago
  Any four GOP senators can defect and depose Mitch McConnell, but haven't. The Senate is very much in control of 53 people.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - irjustin 6y ago
    100% this. Towing the party line at all cost is what the GOP are doing today. 20 years ago this wouldn't be the case, but keeping the party unified at all cost, against morals, ethics, logic, is what is happening. What saddens me is the majority vote says they shouldn't be in power in many cases but ultra effective wielding our laws in corner cases has led us to this point. Even while I loathe it, I must say it is quite effective.
klyrs 6y ago
> Then, here's the tough part, don't expand executive power when your own party is in the white house. Optimistic Democrats cheered Obama's expansive use of executive power (so progressive!), and were dismayed when Trump revoked every executive order that Obama's name was on pretty much immediately after taking power. Perhaps this will be a lesson... but I'm betting that Biden would veto any such limitation even if he had a friendly Congress and Senate.
- DFHippie 6y ago
  They cheered because he was doing things they liked, not because he was expanding executive powers. They knew full well that these actions could be undone by the next executive. No one is surprised by this. Obama was doing what he thought was right in the only way left to him: the Republicans controlled the other branches of government and were openly opposed to any compromise. The Republicans still control the Senate and the the courts and Trump, with their complicity, has neutralized all oversight of the executive branch, but it is in his character to rule by fiat, so here we are. What is more remarkable is how little Trump accomplished in his first two years despite controlling all branches of government.

by LanceH 6y ago

Perhaps we can push back against what is effectively legislation by the executive branch. Then, here's the tough part, don't expand executive power when your own party is in the white house.

inetknght 6y ago

> Perhaps we can push back against what is effectively legislation by the executive branch. By doing what? Protest?

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

I agree with the general principle, but in this case Congress can't exactly pass a bill for every project requiring environmental review. They have to delegate some authority to the executive here.

rsynnott 6y ago
In parliamentary democracies, this sort of thing is normally a devolved ministerial power. Of course, it’s a lot easier to get rid of a naughty minister.
tekdude 6y ago
I always thought the BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure) process was intuitive. Congress passed an act tasking the executive branch to pick which military bases to close, then there was a guaranteed for/against vote with minimal deliberation and no delays or Filibuster.

unclebucknasty 6y ago

>here's the tough part, don't expand executive power when your own party is in the white house. Solution to that is a functioning Congress, which requires less polarization (i.e. more compromise) and sane campaign finance laws. Term limits couldn't hurt either.

nitwit005 6y ago

It's a two party system where neither seems to care that the presidency wields too much power, so fixing it is probably in the realm of constitutional amendments at the moment.

DetroitThrow 6y ago
Much of the power given to the President here seems to be from legislation itself or lack of legislation altogether. I don't think there's any constitutional changes that would need to take place in order to restrict executive power on subjects like environmental regulation, emergency powers, among other things.

pstuart 6y ago

True. But the Senate is broken by being effectively owned by a single senator.

Nas808 6y ago
Moscow Mitch has bills to pay
alonmower 6y ago
Owned by a party, McConnell just takes all of the responsibility because he’s in one of the safest seats
jude- 6y ago
Any four GOP senators can defect and depose Mitch McConnell, but haven't. The Senate is very much in control of 53 people.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- irjustin 6y ago
  100% this. Towing the party line at all cost is what the GOP are doing today. 20 years ago this wouldn't be the case, but keeping the party unified at all cost, against morals, ethics, logic, is what is happening. What saddens me is the majority vote says they shouldn't be in power in many cases but ultra effective wielding our laws in corner cases has led us to this point. Even while I loathe it, I must say it is quite effective.

klyrs 6y ago

> Then, here's the tough part, don't expand executive power when your own party is in the white house. Optimistic Democrats cheered Obama's expansive use of executive power (so progressive!), and were dismayed when Trump revoked every executive order that Obama's name was on pretty much immediately after taking power. Perhaps this will be a lesson... but I'm betting that Biden would veto any such limitation even if he had a friendly Congress and Senate.

DFHippie 6y ago
They cheered because he was doing things they liked, not because he was expanding executive powers. They knew full well that these actions could be undone by the next executive. No one is surprised by this. Obama was doing what he thought was right in the only way left to him: the Republicans controlled the other branches of government and were openly opposed to any compromise. The Republicans still control the Senate and the the courts and Trump, with their complicity, has neutralized all oversight of the executive branch, but it is in his character to rule by fiat, so here we are. What is more remarkable is how little Trump accomplished in his first two years despite controlling all branches of government.