22 ms·

Then they can consult with experts, put it in a bill, and vote on it, instead of leaving it up to later extra-legislative discretion from political appointees w

Then they can consult with experts, put it in a bill, and vote on it, instead of leaving it up to later extra-legislative discretion from political appointees with questionable expertise. It sounds like you're referring to Locke's view on separation of power? He did hold legislative power supreme over the others like you say, but also noted that legislative power derives its authority from the people (consent of the governed), who have the right to make and unmake the legislature. > And when the people have said we will submit to rules, and be governed by laws made by such men... nobody else can say other men shall make laws for them; nor can the people be bound by any laws but as such as are enacted by those whom they have chosen, and authorized to make laws for them. Representation is now extremely poor in the United States. Colonial Americans enjoyed better representation on paper (though virtual) than the average American does today. People have better representation in Commie China. We're an extreme outlier among OECD countries, with over 700k constituents per rep. Compare Nordic countries, with more like 40k per rep, closer to the U.S. in the late 1700s and early 1800s. The only act of Congress I advocate for is repealing the "Permanent" Apportionment Act of 1929.

theptip 2y ago
That doesn’t solve the problem; how do you decide the ambiguity in the meantime? (Concretely, some court is evaluating a dispute. Does the EPA have the right to decree X, or not?)
- maxwell 2y ago
  In the U.S., the federal government only has powers that have been explicitly allocated by the sovereign (the People). The executive, under the guise of any three letters, can't "decree" shit beyond EOs. The President has enforcement and federative powers, not legislative.
  - rustcleaner 2y ago
    >by the sovereign (the People) This is a mere magick trick that can only ultimately be enforced by private firearms. You do not hold allodial title to the things which you need to live. You can be involuntarily caged for long periods for mere possession of materials or objects. You are a subject, not a sovereign. Try protecting yourself from kidnap by an enforcer next time he catches you with a joint, you will be swiftly escalated to execution if you successfully fight off application of chains. You are not sovereign if your choices are death or obedience (even to the god/religion "The Law"). Our system kills sovereigns systematically and convinces its subjects they're sovereign (they're not) in order to lessen the odds said subjects learn from the state and get violent against its enforcers. Democracy did not help us: it helps the ruling elite by playing a magick trick on you, convincing you to give up violent power and accept the unacceptable because "We have rules and a system, and you agreed to those rules so tough nuts! You've got a chance for change next election cycle." Its original intent was noble, but seriously try BSing me that we have any effect after the comedic horror show last night...

theptip 2y ago

That doesn’t solve the problem; how do you decide the ambiguity in the meantime? (Concretely, some court is evaluating a dispute. Does the EPA have the right to decree X, or not?)

maxwell 2y ago
In the U.S., the federal government only has powers that have been explicitly allocated by the sovereign (the People). The executive, under the guise of any three letters, can't "decree" shit beyond EOs. The President has enforcement and federative powers, not legislative.
- rustcleaner 2y ago
  >by the sovereign (the People) This is a mere magick trick that can only ultimately be enforced by private firearms. You do not hold allodial title to the things which you need to live. You can be involuntarily caged for long periods for mere possession of materials or objects. You are a subject, not a sovereign. Try protecting yourself from kidnap by an enforcer next time he catches you with a joint, you will be swiftly escalated to execution if you successfully fight off application of chains. You are not sovereign if your choices are death or obedience (even to the god/religion "The Law"). Our system kills sovereigns systematically and convinces its subjects they're sovereign (they're not) in order to lessen the odds said subjects learn from the state and get violent against its enforcers. Democracy did not help us: it helps the ruling elite by playing a magick trick on you, convincing you to give up violent power and accept the unacceptable because "We have rules and a system, and you agreed to those rules so tough nuts! You've got a chance for change next election cycle." Its original intent was noble, but seriously try BSing me that we have any effect after the comedic horror show last night...