3 ms·

For nearly a hundred years, the people have voted for those reforms. That’s called governance and democracy. Reactionary people have always been upset about an

For nearly a hundred years, the people have voted for those reforms. That’s called governance and democracy. Reactionary people have always been upset about any change. This using an unaccountable fall guy to break the law at will, so that congress can avoid accountability is gross. Folks with your opinion like to wax on about constitutional principles, blah blah blah, as we stand by and watch the shitshow that is happening right now.

rayiner 2y ago
Ignoring the constitution isn't a "reform" it's lawlessness. There's no other developed country in the world where the government's actual structure is so divorced from its written constitution. People voted for the administrative state in the 1930s, and they've been voting to cut back on it since 1980. Since then, the only President who won elections without promising to shrink government were Obama (in response to the disaster of Iraq and the Great Recession) and Biden (in response to COVID).
- Spooky23 2y ago
  The constitution doesn’t say there cannot be a civil service or whatever you are mad about. Congress is empowered to enact laws. I don’t remember an article in the constitution that allows a rich crony to act in contempt of the laws established by congress as an officer of the government without appointment. But I guess our dedication to solemn constitutional principles varies.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    The Constitution makes clear that all executive power is invested in the president. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-ii?gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAADJbFsAgKJZQ1UI65OOuCDPxI5X24 https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/art.... It’s literally the first sentence of Article II. So you can have a civil service (and the framers assumed there would be one) but Congress can’t insulate the civil service from the president’s direct supervision. That’s obviously true—because the presidential election is the only way people have to politically influence the internal operation of the executive branch itself.
    - dctoedt 2y ago
      I'm waiting for the unitary-executive crowd to admit that they're monarchists at heart — and not constitutional monarchists.

rayiner 2y ago

Ignoring the constitution isn't a "reform" it's lawlessness. There's no other developed country in the world where the government's actual structure is so divorced from its written constitution. People voted for the administrative state in the 1930s, and they've been voting to cut back on it since 1980. Since then, the only President who won elections without promising to shrink government were Obama (in response to the disaster of Iraq and the Great Recession) and Biden (in response to COVID).

Spooky23 2y ago
The constitution doesn’t say there cannot be a civil service or whatever you are mad about. Congress is empowered to enact laws. I don’t remember an article in the constitution that allows a rich crony to act in contempt of the laws established by congress as an officer of the government without appointment. But I guess our dedication to solemn constitutional principles varies.
- rayiner 2y ago
  The Constitution makes clear that all executive power is invested in the president. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-ii?gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAADJbFsAgKJZQ1UI65OOuCDPxI5X24 https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/art.... It’s literally the first sentence of Article II. So you can have a civil service (and the framers assumed there would be one) but Congress can’t insulate the civil service from the president’s direct supervision. That’s obviously true—because the presidential election is the only way people have to politically influence the internal operation of the executive branch itself.
  - dctoedt 2y ago
    I'm waiting for the unitary-executive crowd to admit that they're monarchists at heart — and not constitutional monarchists.