4 ms·

> How on earth would you organise elections for every single DMV employee? Or every single park ranger? Or every single government accountant or secretary? Ever

by lmm 2y ago

> How on earth would you organise elections for every single DMV employee? Or every single park ranger? Or every single government accountant or secretary? Every single civil servant involved in collecting the data used to drive policy decisions. You can't. Which is exactly why the civil service is supposed to impartially implement the policies of the elected government rather than making their own judgements. IMO the increasing partiality of these bureaucrats (who are drawn from the professional-managerial class and have the views of that class, which are increasingly out of step with those of the average citizen, especially on social issues) was one of the big contributors to Trump getting elected.

squigz 2y ago
> which are increasingly out of step with those of the average citizen, especially on social issues They've always been out of touch in the same way they are now. They just used to align more closely with your own political beliefs.
- lmm 2y ago
  I don't think that's entirely true. We used to have much more social mobility back when it was legal to e.g. build your own house. These kind of government jobs didn't always require a degree (and getting a degree didn't always require generational wealth). And there was a dramatic increase in class polarisation on social issues post-Occupy Wall Street.
linkregister 2y ago
The policies of the elected government in the United States are decided by the legislative branch, as bills that are passed into law. By ignoring U.S. code, bureaucrats would be violating the U.S. Constitution. "The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof" - Article 1, §8, United States Constitution.
- lmm 2y ago
  > "The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof" - Article 1, §8, United States Constitution. Don't stop there, carry on and read Article 2: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". Nothing in there about anyone else taking the faithful execution of the laws upon themselves.
  - linkregister 2y ago
    > Nothing in there about anyone else taking the faithful execution of the laws upon themselves. I agree. Everyone else must follow the law as stated in the U.S Code, as codified by Congress, as stated in article 1, section 8.
    - lmm 2y ago
      Bit weird to make a fuss about the constitution just to say the law is the law, you make it sound like breaking the ordinary law is unconstitutional. But yes, everyone has an obligation to follow the law, which is what exactly this EO is about. Federal agencies don't get to pick and choose their own creative interpretations of the law, they have to follow the actual law. The president literally has a constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, and this EO is him doing that.
      - linkregister 2y ago
        The EO contradicts the Constitution by declaring that agencies must refer to the President and the Attorney General for all interpretations of the law. This is a novel proposal not rooted in the historical functioning of the federal government. The government agencies' powers come from the legislature and must follow U.S. Code, derived from the legislature's laws. Agencies hire their own counsel to make guidelines and regulations from U.S. Code. As a technologist, you have the confidence to interpret the law and the Constitution from your version of reasoning from first principles. However, the Supreme Court and other courts repeatedly disagree with your interpretation, which willfully ignores the first article in favor of the second.

by lmm 2y ago

squigz 2y ago

> which are increasingly out of step with those of the average citizen, especially on social issues They've always been out of touch in the same way they are now. They just used to align more closely with your own political beliefs.

lmm 2y ago
I don't think that's entirely true. We used to have much more social mobility back when it was legal to e.g. build your own house. These kind of government jobs didn't always require a degree (and getting a degree didn't always require generational wealth). And there was a dramatic increase in class polarisation on social issues post-Occupy Wall Street.

linkregister 2y ago

The policies of the elected government in the United States are decided by the legislative branch, as bills that are passed into law. By ignoring U.S. code, bureaucrats would be violating the U.S. Constitution. "The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof" - Article 1, §8, United States Constitution.

lmm 2y ago
> "The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof" - Article 1, §8, United States Constitution. Don't stop there, carry on and read Article 2: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". Nothing in there about anyone else taking the faithful execution of the laws upon themselves.
- linkregister 2y ago
  > Nothing in there about anyone else taking the faithful execution of the laws upon themselves. I agree. Everyone else must follow the law as stated in the U.S Code, as codified by Congress, as stated in article 1, section 8.
  - lmm 2y ago
    Bit weird to make a fuss about the constitution just to say the law is the law, you make it sound like breaking the ordinary law is unconstitutional. But yes, everyone has an obligation to follow the law, which is what exactly this EO is about. Federal agencies don't get to pick and choose their own creative interpretations of the law, they have to follow the actual law. The president literally has a constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, and this EO is him doing that.
    - linkregister 2y ago
      The EO contradicts the Constitution by declaring that agencies must refer to the President and the Attorney General for all interpretations of the law. This is a novel proposal not rooted in the historical functioning of the federal government. The government agencies' powers come from the legislature and must follow U.S. Code, derived from the legislature's laws. Agencies hire their own counsel to make guidelines and regulations from U.S. Code. As a technologist, you have the confidence to interpret the law and the Constitution from your version of reasoning from first principles. However, the Supreme Court and other courts repeatedly disagree with your interpretation, which willfully ignores the first article in favor of the second.