3 ms·

The American democracy didn't respond to the authoritarian plans other than hoping that the judicial system will do its work. This is too little too late, espec

The American democracy didn't respond to the authoritarian plans other than hoping that the judicial system will do its work. This is too little too late, especially when republicans are in a frenzy run to shape judicial benches all over the country. The democratic answer, as I mentioned above, would be for Congress to introduce proper legislation to answer to this new situation where a foreign company operates a social network.

seanmcdirmid 6y ago
Separation of powers and checks and balances are key to the USA not being an authoritarian country, otherwise we would be more like China where the official branch is only checked by their superiors (if any). Congress is another check on executive power and is also checked itself. However, the judicial system is designed to be way more responsive and definitive than the legislative branch.
- coliveira 6y ago
  Exactly he opposite, Congress is (or should be) the main focus in a democracy because it has elected officials representing the nation. The judiciary should be the last resort in the case of indecision between the other two branches. In the dysfunctional American democracy exactly the opposite happens: people hope that judges will save democracy and the legislative becomes each year more powerless against the executive.
  - seanmcdirmid 6y ago
    Seeing as Trump can’t do much without congress, I don’t get your point. His executive orders are limited m, and the judiciary is the branch that tells him that, the legislative branch has more power but doesn’t get to tell trump what his executive orders can do like the judicial system.
    - coliveira 6y ago
      The point is that Congress should not let in the hands of a person like D.T. the important task of defining which companies should operate in the country. There should be legislation to determine this.
      - seanmcdirmid 6y ago
        That isn't how our democracy works. Congress doesn't get to decide who gets to be president, the voters do. We don't have a prime minister. An executive order can literally declare anything it wants. If it goes against the law, that is where the courts come in. Congress can't tell the president what he can and cannot write, if the president writes an order that goes against the law, that is where the courts come in (and that is what is happening).
        coliveira 6y ago
        Complete non-sense. The Congress has a prerogative of creating laws. It can decide what will happen in situations exactly like the social media case we see now. Executive orders, in a functioning democracy, should be the last resort for situations in which the president needs to act fast, for example, a war (already declared by Congress, by the way) or natural disaster situation. What we see happening in the US is the fossilization of an authoritarian regime where the president creates de facto laws in the stroke of his pen and the Senate supports his undemocratic behavior, while Congress is kept powerless. The only thing left to check for abuses is the judiciary system, which has not been elected in the first place, and by the way can only limit the worst illegal excesses. It is essentially a "constitutional autocracy" in practice.

seanmcdirmid 6y ago

Separation of powers and checks and balances are key to the USA not being an authoritarian country, otherwise we would be more like China where the official branch is only checked by their superiors (if any). Congress is another check on executive power and is also checked itself. However, the judicial system is designed to be way more responsive and definitive than the legislative branch.

coliveira 6y ago
Exactly he opposite, Congress is (or should be) the main focus in a democracy because it has elected officials representing the nation. The judiciary should be the last resort in the case of indecision between the other two branches. In the dysfunctional American democracy exactly the opposite happens: people hope that judges will save democracy and the legislative becomes each year more powerless against the executive.
- seanmcdirmid 6y ago
  Seeing as Trump can’t do much without congress, I don’t get your point. His executive orders are limited m, and the judiciary is the branch that tells him that, the legislative branch has more power but doesn’t get to tell trump what his executive orders can do like the judicial system.
  - coliveira 6y ago
    The point is that Congress should not let in the hands of a person like D.T. the important task of defining which companies should operate in the country. There should be legislation to determine this.
    - seanmcdirmid 6y ago
      That isn't how our democracy works. Congress doesn't get to decide who gets to be president, the voters do. We don't have a prime minister. An executive order can literally declare anything it wants. If it goes against the law, that is where the courts come in. Congress can't tell the president what he can and cannot write, if the president writes an order that goes against the law, that is where the courts come in (and that is what is happening).
      - coliveira 6y ago
        Complete non-sense. The Congress has a prerogative of creating laws. It can decide what will happen in situations exactly like the social media case we see now. Executive orders, in a functioning democracy, should be the last resort for situations in which the president needs to act fast, for example, a war (already declared by Congress, by the way) or natural disaster situation. What we see happening in the US is the fossilization of an authoritarian regime where the president creates de facto laws in the stroke of his pen and the Senate supports his undemocratic behavior, while Congress is kept powerless. The only thing left to check for abuses is the judiciary system, which has not been elected in the first place, and by the way can only limit the worst illegal excesses. It is essentially a "constitutional autocracy" in practice.