3 ms·
The problem with separation of powers is that it can ultimately lead to no power. If you neuter the executive branch agencies out of fear that an opponent would
by jfengel 3y ago
The problem with separation of powers is that it can ultimately lead to no power. If you neuter the executive branch agencies out of fear that an opponent would use them against you, then you also have no opportunity for those agencies to do you any benefit.
To do something beneficial, you have to do both. You have to make some mechanism by which the government can accomplish things, and then vote in a government that does what you want. It's an ongoing process.
Separation of powers is the reason that the legislature is practically useless for defending your rights. You have to get many different groups to sign off: the House and the Senate (by a filibuster-proof margin) and the President, and hope that the Supreme Court doesn't just throw it all out. There are so many places where a defender of the status quo can just put their foot down and say "no".
The executive branch is just about the last place where action can actually be taken. And that, too, is incredibly slow and cumbersome, but it's at least not impossible.
- AlbertCory 3y agoI guess you don't like our Constitution, then?
- philwelch 3y ago> Separation of powers is the reason that the legislature is practically useless for defending your rights. Separation of powers is actually very useful for defending your rights from the government, which was the original motivation.
- jfengel 3y agoTwo and a half centuries later that motivation would be expected to drift. Especially as many people had no input into that original drafting, and have concerns that aren't well represented.
- philwelch 3y agoThat's why the Constitution includes a provision that allows the Constitution to be amended.
- jfengel 3y agoThe bar it sets is extremely high, and it has not meaningfully happened in my lifetime. It is effectively impossible.
- AlbertCory 3y agoGuess you're not very old, then. Or you want things that a supermajority doesn't, which is As Designed.
- philwelch 3y agoSomeone who was born in late 1992 or 1993 would be 31 years old now, which isn’t very old but also isn’t particularly young. It’s also worth pointing out that there’s much less impetus to amend the constitution when you can just circumvent it, which both parties have consistently done for quite some time now. For what it’s worth, even Antonin Scalia was of the opinion that it is too hard to amend the constitution. So I don’t think that’s an entirely unreasonable idea. I just don’t think that’s an excuse to just ignore it or attempt to game the system with court packing and the like.
- AlbertCory 3y agoFWIW: is this supposed to add credibility, that you found one conservative justice? "Too hard" really means "we're not getting what we want." Again, that is As Designed. Amendments really are supposed to represent an overwhelming consensus. Not just the blue states (or the red).
- philwelch 3y agoDude, calm down. I’m mostly agreeing with you and partly conceding that maybe 3/4 of the states is too high a bar. 2/3 of the states would be a more reasonable supermajority that would still need to cross the blue/red divide. There’s no way you’re getting 2/3 of the states to do something radical like repeal the Second Amendment (more than half of the states have expanded gun rights since 1990) or decide the abortion issue on the federal level. And please, Antonin Scalia was not just “one conservative justice”.
- peddling-brink 3y agoIt’s ok that the government moves slow. Can you imagine your least favorite politician leading an efficient government with no checks on their power? I don’t even want that for my favorite politician.