7 ms·

The evil genius of this move is that it gets everybody arguing about DEI, and we’re letting the continued expansion of absolute executive power centered in the

The evil genius of this move is that it gets everybody arguing about DEI, and we’re letting the continued expansion of absolute executive power centered in the president go unchecked. It’s not even about party; this started with FDR or even earlier, massively expanded under LBJ and again under W and Obama, and now here we are. The president feels no obligation at all to execute what the Congress authorized him to. Instead the limits of power are whatever the president can get away with. We have a constitutional problem where the Congress is unwilling or unable to legislate effectively and the executive gets to make policy unilaterally. This is not the balance of powers from the U.S. constitution. This is something else.

throw7474847 2y ago
[flagged]
pjc50 2y ago
> We have a constitutional problem where the Congress is unwilling or unable to legislate effectively and the executive gets to make policy unilaterally. This is not the balance of powers from the U.S. constitution The Republican party controls both houses and the presidency, having already stacked the supreme court, so they get to do whatever they want and there is no balance of powers. Inevitable consequence of a two-party system with first past the post voting.
- FredPret 2y ago
  There is still a very clear balance of power. All Republicans and all Democrats don’t act and think as one. Take any collection of humans, of any size, and their opinions will be spread across a spectrum. There are, and always will be, some members in either house and of any party that find it’s in their political interest to debate and pull new laws left or right. This is especially true under FPTP because each member has to answer to an area, and different areas of a country have baked-in differences in their ideal political outcomes and points of view.
  - noobermin 2y ago
    This is a naive, context-free misunderstanding of the present moment based on supposedly intuitive truisms. The Republican party is Trump's party and has been for years now. Pretending there is that much variation that matters is ridiculous and can be remedied by reading any piece of news from the last few years.
  - dboreham 2y ago
    If that were true then we wouldn't be watching a collection of circus performers get confirmed by congress.
  - coliveira 2y ago
    The US is now a formal democracy, but it doesn't work as one. There is one guy making decisions, the remaining are either too feeble to do anything about or just fine with the status quo. Yes, there are formal avenues for responses, like the judiciary system, but they've been made toothless. The very fact that Trump is back in the WH is proof of this.
  - sevensor 2y ago
    Balance of powers has nothing to do with party; it’s about the ability of one branch of government to operate without constraint by the other branches of government. It was instituted in the US by people who were trying to take lessons from history; both recent (the Intolerable Acts) and ancient (Appius Claudius, Octavian, Alexander, the Thirty), and it’s been forgotten by generations who’ve come to take its protections for granted.
  - tastyfreeze 2y ago
    Looking at the past voting records, Democrats often vote as a block in both houses of Congress. The same can't be said about Republicans.
    - contagiousflow 2y ago
      I feel like that's pretty disingenuous to say that. They have both been increasing party line voting for decades. https://rollcall.com/2021/03/03/no-quarter-for-centrists-in-house-2020-vote-studies/ https://rollcall.com/2021/03/03/no-quarter-for-centrists-in-...
- tbrownaw 2y ago
  > The Republican party controls both houses and the presidency, having already stacked the supreme court, so they get to do whatever they want and there is no balance of powers. - No, the supreme court is the same size it's always been. - No, members of congress don't always vote the party line (although this has consistently gotten worse over time) - No, that's not what "balance of powers" means.
  - hiddencost 2y ago
    Point of order, the supreme court has changed size 6 times https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/institution.aspx#:~:text=The%20number%20of%20Justices%20on,an%20average%20of%2016%20years. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/institution.aspx#:~:text=...
    - whatshisface 2y ago
      A point of order means someone has violated congressional procedure.
      - 15155 2y ago
        Or just Robert's Rules.
        whatshisface 2y ago
        Right, but disagreeing with something is just a point, not a point of order.
  - dboreham 2y ago
    > - No, the supreme court is the same size it's always been. Stacked in the sense that more members were appointed by one party vs the other (including one by dubious means), and those people apparently are quite partisan.
  - chomp 2y ago
    1.) non sequitur 2.) missing the point 3.) pedantic The point is that the current party in power has had multiple opportunities to reign in the current lawlessness and the current minority party has attempted to do so, to no result.
- Am4TIfIsER0ppos 2y ago
  FPTP is a superior option to proportional representation. Belgium still lacks a federal government despite voting 5 months before the Americans and being just some 10 million people and we aren't going to get one either before they get their whole cabinet (minister equivalents) confirmed and installed. This is because there are 5 parties trying form a coalition raging from nationalist-separatist to socialist-rebranded-to-progressive across 2 languages. Brussels lacks its regional government too and is even further away from resolving the impasse. America would be well advised to avoid this. They'd immediately get a language divide between English and Spanish. The alleged "grand coalitions" of the Democrat and Republican parties would crumble. There might be some consensus in the center which might be large enough but then policies would never change regardless of who you vote for, just like in the times before Trump.
fzeroracer 2y ago
Conservatives realized that they could effectively lock down Congress, take over the Supreme Court and then vest all power in the executive. The whole arguments against DEI, smaller governments etc are all a smoke screen because they have zero issues with nepotism and favoritism as long as it benefits them. And no issue with government overreach as long as they control it. Unfortunately I think the only direction is balkanization of the states. And I don't think that is going to end well.
- sevensor 2y ago
  It may be easy to get mad as the Republicans for this, but there’s a clear bipartisan precedent here. Remember DACA? Might have been a good policy if Congress had enacted it. Bad precedent as an executive action though, because it establishes that the president’s ability to make immigration policy is effectively unlimited. Today’s ICE raids are made possible by DACA.
  - panic 2y ago
    No, ICE was established in 2003, post-9/11, way before DACA in 2012, and it was always intended to be used for this purpose.
    - bumby 2y ago
      I think the OP has a different point. I don’t think they were claiming ICE was created by DACA, but rather their actions were enabled by it.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - fzeroracer 2y ago
    I'm not particularly going to disagree that the Dems are useless or not part of the problem, because they absolutely are. A lot of the issues we have is because of continued attempts at bipartisanship watering down bills into oblivion, means-testing and obsession with locking out people further left. But ultimately a lot of our core foundational agencies have been functioning well regardless. And it's only the right that's intent on tearing them down no matter the consequences. So while the Dems enable this, the Republicans enact it.
bumby 2y ago
I used to think the problem of governance by EO was getting worse too but the stats tell a different story: https://www.statista.com/chart/7658/number-of-executive-orders-issued-on-average-per-year-by-us-presidents/ https://www.statista.com/chart/7658/number-of-executive-orde...
- idle_zealot 2y ago
  Somehow "number of EOs" doesn't sound like the right metric to use when determining whether executive power is growing. Surely it's the content that matters.
  - bombcar 2y ago
    Especially when there are EOs for naming post offices and other boring mechanical work of the executive. It would take some serious effort (and there’d be disagreement) but maybe you could classify “important” government changes and if they were enacted by congress, EO, courts, etc.
    - WillowWithAWand 2y ago
      Also, that link stops with Obama and that leaves out two whole administrations that would be pretty pertinent data in this discussion. Nearly a decade of data. It looks like Trump's first term had 220 and Biden had 162. It would be interesting to see the data classified the way you described and then broken down by party over time. The actual policymaking via EO by each party over the last 50 years would be more elucidating than the straight numbers for sure.
  - ANewFormation 2y ago
    FDR forced people to give up all their gold assets at a fixed rate, under threat of imprisonment for a decade. He then proceeded to nearly double the declared exhange rate up once the government had confiscated everybody's gold. All done by executive order. Makes basically all modern EOs look pretty innocuous by comparison. That said I actually agree and would love to see a sharp reduction in executive power, especially as it comes to using the military. If we're going to go bombing places, that should require a declaration of war from Congress. And 'emergency' powers should not be enabled for decades on end. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
flanked-evergl 2y ago
Nothing evil about not wasting taxpayer money.
- ben_w 2y ago
  He banned politically incorrect research. I'm old enough to remember when it was the right wing complaining about "political correctness gone mad".
greentxt 2y ago
I wouldn't call him genius, but maybe you're right.
- rbanffy 2y ago
  Whoever got the idea of flooding the space with outrageous EOs is a genius. Certainly evil as well.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    Pretty sure it’s the work of Stephen Miller - who is now his senior policy advisor. 8 years ago the Trump admin had no idea what to do. Now they’re prepared and much more dangerous. Some things will be reversed in 4 years time and we can ride out the storm. but others - like renewed emphasis on fossil fuels to reward the big donors and have energy for AI - will have lasting effects on my children and their children — those make me truly furious.
    - intended 2y ago
      Why do people think there is some riding out this storm? I am curious, what do people mean by this?
      - insane_dreamer 2y ago
        I mean you just hunker down, stop reading the news, go about your life, and hope that the “storm” doesn’t do too much damage, and then work like hell in 4 years time to avoid a repeat (won’t be Trump but to prevent another fascist president, also you can bet that Trump will try for a 3 rd term on the basis that he didn’t serve 2 consecutive terms).
        deeg 2y ago
        I think there are some active things you can do to help. Give money to legal groups challenging unconstitutional actions. Write to your various federal reps to let them know how you feel. Be kind and supportive to those being targeted by hate and bigotry. We won't be riding out this storm if we all hunker down.
noobermin 2y ago
People ought to stop thinking everyone one else is playing 3D chess and just accept what is happening in front of their eyes.
coliveira 2y ago
And thanks to Biden's final decisions, presidents and their entourage are effectively immune to prosecution. They just need to "pardon" their friends at the end of the administration. So there is really no limit to what Trump can do.
- freen 2y ago
  Ehh… the Supreme Court actually did this for Trump. All “official” actions of the president are immune from prosecution. Biden just acted on it.
  - rbanffy 2y ago
    > Biden just acted on it. He could have done a lot better with that legal blanket.
- michaelt 2y ago
  That's way older than Biden. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby_clemency_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby_clemency_controv... for example. Hell, look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon
  - lapcat 2y ago
    See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair#Pardons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair#Pardons
  - coliveira 2y ago
    Yes, I know it existed. But democrats acted previously as this was a problem. Now they normalized it and both parties cannot complain anymore. The judiciary system was made completely toothless against a president and anyone he dims a friend.
- intended 2y ago
  Biden exercised the power that the Courts identifed for the President. Still, it doesn't matter. Telling you, this is the one truth of our reality - the dems are always wrong.
throw7474847 2y ago
[flagged]
snowwrestler 2y ago
I think it’s a little early to call the end of the U.S. Constitution. There is a time component to the rule of law that can be frustrating in the moment but has always been true. The President is free to assert his desires. Other parts of the country are free to push back if they choose. This takes filing lawsuits, lobbying Congress, pursuing prosecutions, etc. all of which take time, money, and effort. Which in turn allows short-term disruption to happen as the legal process plays out. Which again, is frustrating. Political mood is also more fickle than people usually believe at the beginning of a new administration. FDR, LBJ, W, Obama, and many other presidents passed through a time in which conventional wisdom held that they had changed the game and amassed too much power. In every case we can look back and see that while they each have left a legacy that endures, it’s smaller than expected at the time. The pendulum swung the other way later on. My own opinion on this is that “don’t tell me what to do” is among the most popular political positions among Americans. So for example, to the extent DEI felt like being told what to do, it became unpopular. But now that anti-DEI is in power, I expect the bloom will come off pretty quickly. In part because of overreach by a new administration overestimating their mandate. (As most new administrations do.)
- sevensor 2y ago
  Agreed, I wouldn’t call it the end either. But it’s a problem for our system of government and I think it’s worth calling attention to.
- mywittyname 2y ago
  > I think it’s a little early to call the end I don't. This has been a long, gradual erosion of constitutional rights, and now the system has crumbled. It may appear to stand, but it's merely resting on the rubble. SCOTUS is going to rule with GOP doctrine, regardless of what the constitution says. The GOP may pursue legal avenues for their actions in an attempt to not make it so apparent that the country is now under single party, totalitarian rule. But they don't have to (see: news). It started with minor constitutional violations, like emoluments, and has ended with blatant ones, such as attacking birthright citizenship.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
I agree with you that FDR was a turning point. Before that Lincoln was a major Executive expansion. We have been beyond US Constitutional limitations for many lifetimes.

throw7474847 2y ago

[flagged]

pjc50 2y ago

> We have a constitutional problem where the Congress is unwilling or unable to legislate effectively and the executive gets to make policy unilaterally. This is not the balance of powers from the U.S. constitution The Republican party controls both houses and the presidency, having already stacked the supreme court, so they get to do whatever they want and there is no balance of powers. Inevitable consequence of a two-party system with first past the post voting.

FredPret 2y ago
There is still a very clear balance of power. All Republicans and all Democrats don’t act and think as one. Take any collection of humans, of any size, and their opinions will be spread across a spectrum. There are, and always will be, some members in either house and of any party that find it’s in their political interest to debate and pull new laws left or right. This is especially true under FPTP because each member has to answer to an area, and different areas of a country have baked-in differences in their ideal political outcomes and points of view.
- noobermin 2y ago
  This is a naive, context-free misunderstanding of the present moment based on supposedly intuitive truisms. The Republican party is Trump's party and has been for years now. Pretending there is that much variation that matters is ridiculous and can be remedied by reading any piece of news from the last few years.
- dboreham 2y ago
  If that were true then we wouldn't be watching a collection of circus performers get confirmed by congress.
- coliveira 2y ago
  The US is now a formal democracy, but it doesn't work as one. There is one guy making decisions, the remaining are either too feeble to do anything about or just fine with the status quo. Yes, there are formal avenues for responses, like the judiciary system, but they've been made toothless. The very fact that Trump is back in the WH is proof of this.
- sevensor 2y ago
  Balance of powers has nothing to do with party; it’s about the ability of one branch of government to operate without constraint by the other branches of government. It was instituted in the US by people who were trying to take lessons from history; both recent (the Intolerable Acts) and ancient (Appius Claudius, Octavian, Alexander, the Thirty), and it’s been forgotten by generations who’ve come to take its protections for granted.
- tastyfreeze 2y ago
  Looking at the past voting records, Democrats often vote as a block in both houses of Congress. The same can't be said about Republicans.
  - contagiousflow 2y ago
    I feel like that's pretty disingenuous to say that. They have both been increasing party line voting for decades. https://rollcall.com/2021/03/03/no-quarter-for-centrists-in-house-2020-vote-studies/ https://rollcall.com/2021/03/03/no-quarter-for-centrists-in-...
tbrownaw 2y ago
> The Republican party controls both houses and the presidency, having already stacked the supreme court, so they get to do whatever they want and there is no balance of powers. - No, the supreme court is the same size it's always been. - No, members of congress don't always vote the party line (although this has consistently gotten worse over time) - No, that's not what "balance of powers" means.
- hiddencost 2y ago
  Point of order, the supreme court has changed size 6 times https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/institution.aspx#:~:text=The%20number%20of%20Justices%20on,an%20average%20of%2016%20years. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/institution.aspx#:~:text=...
  - whatshisface 2y ago
    A point of order means someone has violated congressional procedure.
    - 15155 2y ago
      Or just Robert's Rules.
      - whatshisface 2y ago
        Right, but disagreeing with something is just a point, not a point of order.
- dboreham 2y ago
  > - No, the supreme court is the same size it's always been. Stacked in the sense that more members were appointed by one party vs the other (including one by dubious means), and those people apparently are quite partisan.
- chomp 2y ago
  1.) non sequitur 2.) missing the point 3.) pedantic The point is that the current party in power has had multiple opportunities to reign in the current lawlessness and the current minority party has attempted to do so, to no result.
Am4TIfIsER0ppos 2y ago
FPTP is a superior option to proportional representation. Belgium still lacks a federal government despite voting 5 months before the Americans and being just some 10 million people and we aren't going to get one either before they get their whole cabinet (minister equivalents) confirmed and installed. This is because there are 5 parties trying form a coalition raging from nationalist-separatist to socialist-rebranded-to-progressive across 2 languages. Brussels lacks its regional government too and is even further away from resolving the impasse. America would be well advised to avoid this. They'd immediately get a language divide between English and Spanish. The alleged "grand coalitions" of the Democrat and Republican parties would crumble. There might be some consensus in the center which might be large enough but then policies would never change regardless of who you vote for, just like in the times before Trump.

fzeroracer 2y ago

Conservatives realized that they could effectively lock down Congress, take over the Supreme Court and then vest all power in the executive. The whole arguments against DEI, smaller governments etc are all a smoke screen because they have zero issues with nepotism and favoritism as long as it benefits them. And no issue with government overreach as long as they control it. Unfortunately I think the only direction is balkanization of the states. And I don't think that is going to end well.

sevensor 2y ago
It may be easy to get mad as the Republicans for this, but there’s a clear bipartisan precedent here. Remember DACA? Might have been a good policy if Congress had enacted it. Bad precedent as an executive action though, because it establishes that the president’s ability to make immigration policy is effectively unlimited. Today’s ICE raids are made possible by DACA.
- panic 2y ago
  No, ICE was established in 2003, post-9/11, way before DACA in 2012, and it was always intended to be used for this purpose.
  - bumby 2y ago
    I think the OP has a different point. I don’t think they were claiming ICE was created by DACA, but rather their actions were enabled by it.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- fzeroracer 2y ago
  I'm not particularly going to disagree that the Dems are useless or not part of the problem, because they absolutely are. A lot of the issues we have is because of continued attempts at bipartisanship watering down bills into oblivion, means-testing and obsession with locking out people further left. But ultimately a lot of our core foundational agencies have been functioning well regardless. And it's only the right that's intent on tearing them down no matter the consequences. So while the Dems enable this, the Republicans enact it.

bumby 2y ago

I used to think the problem of governance by EO was getting worse too but the stats tell a different story: https://www.statista.com/chart/7658/number-of-executive-orders-issued-on-average-per-year-by-us-presidents/ https://www.statista.com/chart/7658/number-of-executive-orde...

idle_zealot 2y ago
Somehow "number of EOs" doesn't sound like the right metric to use when determining whether executive power is growing. Surely it's the content that matters.
- bombcar 2y ago
  Especially when there are EOs for naming post offices and other boring mechanical work of the executive. It would take some serious effort (and there’d be disagreement) but maybe you could classify “important” government changes and if they were enacted by congress, EO, courts, etc.
  - WillowWithAWand 2y ago
    Also, that link stops with Obama and that leaves out two whole administrations that would be pretty pertinent data in this discussion. Nearly a decade of data. It looks like Trump's first term had 220 and Biden had 162. It would be interesting to see the data classified the way you described and then broken down by party over time. The actual policymaking via EO by each party over the last 50 years would be more elucidating than the straight numbers for sure.
- ANewFormation 2y ago
  FDR forced people to give up all their gold assets at a fixed rate, under threat of imprisonment for a decade. He then proceeded to nearly double the declared exhange rate up once the government had confiscated everybody's gold. All done by executive order. Makes basically all modern EOs look pretty innocuous by comparison. That said I actually agree and would love to see a sharp reduction in executive power, especially as it comes to using the military. If we're going to go bombing places, that should require a declaration of war from Congress. And 'emergency' powers should not be enabled for decades on end. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

flanked-evergl 2y ago

Nothing evil about not wasting taxpayer money.

ben_w 2y ago
He banned politically incorrect research. I'm old enough to remember when it was the right wing complaining about "political correctness gone mad".

greentxt 2y ago

I wouldn't call him genius, but maybe you're right.

rbanffy 2y ago
Whoever got the idea of flooding the space with outrageous EOs is a genius. Certainly evil as well.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  Pretty sure it’s the work of Stephen Miller - who is now his senior policy advisor. 8 years ago the Trump admin had no idea what to do. Now they’re prepared and much more dangerous. Some things will be reversed in 4 years time and we can ride out the storm. but others - like renewed emphasis on fossil fuels to reward the big donors and have energy for AI - will have lasting effects on my children and their children — those make me truly furious.
  - intended 2y ago
    Why do people think there is some riding out this storm? I am curious, what do people mean by this?
    - insane_dreamer 2y ago
      I mean you just hunker down, stop reading the news, go about your life, and hope that the “storm” doesn’t do too much damage, and then work like hell in 4 years time to avoid a repeat (won’t be Trump but to prevent another fascist president, also you can bet that Trump will try for a 3 rd term on the basis that he didn’t serve 2 consecutive terms).
      - deeg 2y ago
        I think there are some active things you can do to help. Give money to legal groups challenging unconstitutional actions. Write to your various federal reps to let them know how you feel. Be kind and supportive to those being targeted by hate and bigotry. We won't be riding out this storm if we all hunker down.

noobermin 2y ago

People ought to stop thinking everyone one else is playing 3D chess and just accept what is happening in front of their eyes.

coliveira 2y ago

And thanks to Biden's final decisions, presidents and their entourage are effectively immune to prosecution. They just need to "pardon" their friends at the end of the administration. So there is really no limit to what Trump can do.

freen 2y ago
Ehh… the Supreme Court actually did this for Trump. All “official” actions of the president are immune from prosecution. Biden just acted on it.
- rbanffy 2y ago
  > Biden just acted on it. He could have done a lot better with that legal blanket.
michaelt 2y ago
That's way older than Biden. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby_clemency_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby_clemency_controv... for example. Hell, look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon
- lapcat 2y ago
  See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair#Pardons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair#Pardons
- coliveira 2y ago
  Yes, I know it existed. But democrats acted previously as this was a problem. Now they normalized it and both parties cannot complain anymore. The judiciary system was made completely toothless against a president and anyone he dims a friend.
intended 2y ago
Biden exercised the power that the Courts identifed for the President. Still, it doesn't matter. Telling you, this is the one truth of our reality - the dems are always wrong.

throw7474847 2y ago

[flagged]

snowwrestler 2y ago

I think it’s a little early to call the end of the U.S. Constitution. There is a time component to the rule of law that can be frustrating in the moment but has always been true. The President is free to assert his desires. Other parts of the country are free to push back if they choose. This takes filing lawsuits, lobbying Congress, pursuing prosecutions, etc. all of which take time, money, and effort. Which in turn allows short-term disruption to happen as the legal process plays out. Which again, is frustrating. Political mood is also more fickle than people usually believe at the beginning of a new administration. FDR, LBJ, W, Obama, and many other presidents passed through a time in which conventional wisdom held that they had changed the game and amassed too much power. In every case we can look back and see that while they each have left a legacy that endures, it’s smaller than expected at the time. The pendulum swung the other way later on. My own opinion on this is that “don’t tell me what to do” is among the most popular political positions among Americans. So for example, to the extent DEI felt like being told what to do, it became unpopular. But now that anti-DEI is in power, I expect the bloom will come off pretty quickly. In part because of overreach by a new administration overestimating their mandate. (As most new administrations do.)

sevensor 2y ago
Agreed, I wouldn’t call it the end either. But it’s a problem for our system of government and I think it’s worth calling attention to.
mywittyname 2y ago
> I think it’s a little early to call the end I don't. This has been a long, gradual erosion of constitutional rights, and now the system has crumbled. It may appear to stand, but it's merely resting on the rubble. SCOTUS is going to rule with GOP doctrine, regardless of what the constitution says. The GOP may pursue legal avenues for their actions in an attempt to not make it so apparent that the country is now under single party, totalitarian rule. But they don't have to (see: news). It started with minor constitutional violations, like emoluments, and has ended with blatant ones, such as attacking birthright citizenship.
ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago

ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago

I agree with you that FDR was a turning point. Before that Lincoln was a major Executive expansion. We have been beyond US Constitutional limitations for many lifetimes.