5 ms·

A “coup” implies an overthrow of the legal structure of power. Who is being overthrown?

by rayiner 2y ago

leereeves 2y ago
[flagged]
- tyingq 2y ago
  Routinely reaching past the defined limits of the executive branch could be described as a coup. Depending on the event/circumstances, it's congress being overthrown, or the constitution, etc. Assuming a definition of coup like "violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group" there's a reasonable case to be made.
  - leereeves 2y ago
    It seems unlikely that either the current Congress or the current Supreme Court (the arbiters of what is Constitutional) will object. > Assuming a definition of coup like "violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group" Violent? I haven't heard about violence. What are you referring to?
    - tyingq 2y ago
      Ah, so, yes...a "soft" coup. Which isn't uncommon. Though there's many things brewing that might fall back into the mainstream definition.
      - leereeves 2y ago
        A "soft" coup, or... > overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group is what's supposed to happen after an election.
  - nonethewiser 2y ago
    > Routinely reaching past the defined limits of the executive branch could be described as a coup Not accurately. It would apply to probably every president. Biden with student loans for example. This definition is also too broad: "alteration of an existing government by a small group". That would apply to every President. Every president has a cabinet and changes the government. I think you need more precision in your definition.
  - jandrewrogers 2y ago
    > Routinely reaching past the defined limits of the executive branch could be described as a coup. That ship sailed several decades ago, at the least. Presidents have been routinely testing the limits of executive authority longer than I've been alive. Everyone is perfectly happy to rationalize it with motivated reasoning until it is their ox being gored. The histrionics over the current flavor of the month betrays an ignorance of what has been historically routine in Washington DC for a long time or hypocrisy. People only pay attention when they are told to pay attention. As a matter of principle, one side doesn't get to reserve tools of abuse for themselves. I'd rather a system where this was not a thing at all, but since it is, a lot of the shrillness has a "leopards eating faces" vibe. The wheel turns, and it will continue turning.
    - wat10000 2y ago
      Calling this "routine" is completely insane. When has a President ever done something like the instant unilateral dismantling of USAID? Talk about motivated reasoning. This is completely unprecedented and is an attempt to sideline Congress entirely. And it looks likely to succeed.
      - leereeves 2y ago
        That would be a much stronger argument if Congress didn't support Trump here. https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/02/05/congress/house-foreign-affairs-chair-backs-trump-on-usaid-00202598 https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/02/05/congress/ho...
        wat10000 2y ago
        Why would that weaken the argument? Until Congress passes a law authorizing this stuff, it's still a blatant power grab and very much not like what has come before.
  - philwelch 2y ago
    The bureaucracy isn't actually a branch of government recognized by the Constitution. Nominally it's within the executive branch, which the president is in charge of.
- jcranmer 2y ago
  There are several laws and constitutional restrictions that prevent the president from doing whatever the fuck he wants. Under what coherent legal theory is Biden not allowed to cancel student debt obligations to the federal government, but Trump is allowed to cancel government grants explicitly required by law?
  - rayiner 2y ago
    The coherent legal theory is: 1) The student loans are specifically for provided by a detailed statutory scheme. 2) The grants are being made out under general delegations of authority and budgeting power, and are not “explicitly required by law.” To my knowledge, Congress has not specifically appropriated hundreds of millions of dollars e.g. to Catholic refugee resettlement charities. Those grants are being made under discretionary agency action. Correct me if I’m wrong.
    - patagurbon 2y ago
      If Trump was methodically reviewing grants that would be one thing. Essentially shuttering the NSF, NIH, and CDC entirely is completely different
    - jcranmer 2y ago
      SCOTUS overturned Biden's loan forgiveness on the basis that the "general delegation of authority and budgeting power" given to him by statute wasn't sufficiently clear to let him do so, and so the Major Questions doctrine kicks in. And the stuff being paused that's statutorily authorized is USAID--Trump is attempting to unilaterally dismantle an executive agency.
waveBidder 2y ago
the Congress. the president doesn't have the authority to unilaterally shut down entire departments
- nonethewiser 2y ago
  I thin you want to be a little more precise in your definition. A president doing things they dont have the authority for would probably mean every president conducted a coup.
  - patagurbon 2y ago
    This is the closest to constitutional crisis we have gotten in decades. There are different degrees of presidential overreach
    - nonethewiser 2y ago
      Then your definition shouldn't be so broad that includes every president.
- rayiner 2y ago
  Precedent holds that Congress has the power to establish executive branch agencies and lay out their jurisdiction and functions. It also holds that, once so established, the president has the power to decide how they’re operated. There’s a constitutional distinction between this power to create/define (legislative) and the power to run (executive). The article doesn’t seem to be about abolishing the NIH and NSF. Instead it seems to be about NIH and NSF grants to third parties. That seems to fall squarely on the executive side of the line.
  - waveBidder 2y ago
    USAid has been abolished
  - o_x 2y ago
    So it's not shutting down, it's just telling it to operate by doing nothing?
nwatson 2y ago
Musk's operations likely are using illegal means and are an overextension of power, while legislative and judicial branches, as well as internal executive branch watchdogs, have abdicated their roles in oversight and control. This is effectively an overthrow.
- nonethewiser 2y ago
  When I read your comment I am sympathetic to your characterization that its illegal. I expect it will be litigated. But then you conflate illegal with "an overthrow" (of what?) to show its a "coup". This is incredibly hand-wavy and makes the "coup" language look like hyperbole.
  - wat10000 2y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup Trump is essentially ruling by decree and taking actions far outside his authority. If successful, this will de facto strip Congress of much of its power and transfer it to the President. If you want to see what the outcome of that looks like, read about events in Germany in January-March 1933.

A “coup” implies an overthrow of the legal structure of power. Who is being overthrown?

leereeves 2y ago

[flagged]

tyingq 2y ago
Routinely reaching past the defined limits of the executive branch could be described as a coup. Depending on the event/circumstances, it's congress being overthrown, or the constitution, etc. Assuming a definition of coup like "violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group" there's a reasonable case to be made.
- leereeves 2y ago
  It seems unlikely that either the current Congress or the current Supreme Court (the arbiters of what is Constitutional) will object. > Assuming a definition of coup like "violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group" Violent? I haven't heard about violence. What are you referring to?
  - tyingq 2y ago
    Ah, so, yes...a "soft" coup. Which isn't uncommon. Though there's many things brewing that might fall back into the mainstream definition.
    - leereeves 2y ago
      A "soft" coup, or... > overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group is what's supposed to happen after an election.
- nonethewiser 2y ago
  > Routinely reaching past the defined limits of the executive branch could be described as a coup Not accurately. It would apply to probably every president. Biden with student loans for example. This definition is also too broad: "alteration of an existing government by a small group". That would apply to every President. Every president has a cabinet and changes the government. I think you need more precision in your definition.
- jandrewrogers 2y ago
  > Routinely reaching past the defined limits of the executive branch could be described as a coup. That ship sailed several decades ago, at the least. Presidents have been routinely testing the limits of executive authority longer than I've been alive. Everyone is perfectly happy to rationalize it with motivated reasoning until it is their ox being gored. The histrionics over the current flavor of the month betrays an ignorance of what has been historically routine in Washington DC for a long time or hypocrisy. People only pay attention when they are told to pay attention. As a matter of principle, one side doesn't get to reserve tools of abuse for themselves. I'd rather a system where this was not a thing at all, but since it is, a lot of the shrillness has a "leopards eating faces" vibe. The wheel turns, and it will continue turning.
  - wat10000 2y ago
    Calling this "routine" is completely insane. When has a President ever done something like the instant unilateral dismantling of USAID? Talk about motivated reasoning. This is completely unprecedented and is an attempt to sideline Congress entirely. And it looks likely to succeed.
    - leereeves 2y ago
      That would be a much stronger argument if Congress didn't support Trump here. https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/02/05/congress/house-foreign-affairs-chair-backs-trump-on-usaid-00202598 https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/02/05/congress/ho...
      - wat10000 2y ago
        Why would that weaken the argument? Until Congress passes a law authorizing this stuff, it's still a blatant power grab and very much not like what has come before.
- philwelch 2y ago
  The bureaucracy isn't actually a branch of government recognized by the Constitution. Nominally it's within the executive branch, which the president is in charge of.
jcranmer 2y ago
There are several laws and constitutional restrictions that prevent the president from doing whatever the fuck he wants. Under what coherent legal theory is Biden not allowed to cancel student debt obligations to the federal government, but Trump is allowed to cancel government grants explicitly required by law?
- rayiner 2y ago
  The coherent legal theory is: 1) The student loans are specifically for provided by a detailed statutory scheme. 2) The grants are being made out under general delegations of authority and budgeting power, and are not “explicitly required by law.” To my knowledge, Congress has not specifically appropriated hundreds of millions of dollars e.g. to Catholic refugee resettlement charities. Those grants are being made under discretionary agency action. Correct me if I’m wrong.
  - patagurbon 2y ago
    If Trump was methodically reviewing grants that would be one thing. Essentially shuttering the NSF, NIH, and CDC entirely is completely different
  - jcranmer 2y ago
    SCOTUS overturned Biden's loan forgiveness on the basis that the "general delegation of authority and budgeting power" given to him by statute wasn't sufficiently clear to let him do so, and so the Major Questions doctrine kicks in. And the stuff being paused that's statutorily authorized is USAID--Trump is attempting to unilaterally dismantle an executive agency.

waveBidder 2y ago

the Congress. the president doesn't have the authority to unilaterally shut down entire departments

nonethewiser 2y ago
I thin you want to be a little more precise in your definition. A president doing things they dont have the authority for would probably mean every president conducted a coup.
- patagurbon 2y ago
  This is the closest to constitutional crisis we have gotten in decades. There are different degrees of presidential overreach
  - nonethewiser 2y ago
    Then your definition shouldn't be so broad that includes every president.
rayiner 2y ago
Precedent holds that Congress has the power to establish executive branch agencies and lay out their jurisdiction and functions. It also holds that, once so established, the president has the power to decide how they’re operated. There’s a constitutional distinction between this power to create/define (legislative) and the power to run (executive). The article doesn’t seem to be about abolishing the NIH and NSF. Instead it seems to be about NIH and NSF grants to third parties. That seems to fall squarely on the executive side of the line.
- waveBidder 2y ago
  USAid has been abolished
- o_x 2y ago
  So it's not shutting down, it's just telling it to operate by doing nothing?

nwatson 2y ago

Musk's operations likely are using illegal means and are an overextension of power, while legislative and judicial branches, as well as internal executive branch watchdogs, have abdicated their roles in oversight and control. This is effectively an overthrow.

nonethewiser 2y ago
When I read your comment I am sympathetic to your characterization that its illegal. I expect it will be litigated. But then you conflate illegal with "an overthrow" (of what?) to show its a "coup". This is incredibly hand-wavy and makes the "coup" language look like hyperbole.
- wat10000 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup Trump is essentially ruling by decree and taking actions far outside his authority. If successful, this will de facto strip Congress of much of its power and transfer it to the President. If you want to see what the outcome of that looks like, read about events in Germany in January-March 1933.