6 ms·

... which has been allowed and caused by the Republican congressional obstructionism going on since the 90's. Bush, Obama, and Biden could have reduced their ow

... which has been allowed and caused by the Republican congressional obstructionism going on since the 90's. Bush, Obama, and Biden could have reduced their own use of executive power, but they couldn't undo it - rather it was Congress that would have had to reign them in and shrink executive power. Just as the current Congress is ultimately allowing Trump's ongoing authoritarian power grabs, rather than passing laws and impeaching. For another example, take the frequent neofascist argument that the federal agencies are "unaccountable" unless they are under the direct command of the President. No, the agencies were created by Congress, and have always been accountable to Congress. But Congress has not been doing its job, which is why they seem unaccountable.

try_the_bass 2y ago
> No, the agencies were created by congress, and have always been accountable to Congress. But Congress hasn't been doing its job, which is why they seem unaccountable. If Congress hasn't been doing its job, then they don't just seem unaccountable, they actually are.
- mindslight 2y ago
  The levers of accountability could have been pulled any time, so it stands to say that they were still accountable. Perhaps they weren't held accountable as much as you or I would have liked. But the authority was there. But either way I don't really see what greater point you're trying to make.
  - try_the_bass 2y ago
    Just that there is no practical difference between "seeming unaccountable" and "being unaccountable", especially if, as you say, "the levers of accountability could have been pulled", but weren't. If the departments aren't being held accountable, they are, by definition, acting unaccountably. You seemed to disagree, and be trying to make a distinction where no practical difference can be found. You also seem to agree that they haven't been held accountable, which makes this apparent distinction even less coherent! This kind of just comes across as contrarian, or perhaps sophistry to avoid agreeing with an apparent opponent?
    - exe34 2y ago
      > but weren't Does that imply unaccountable, or does it mean Congress thought they were doing a good job?
      - XorNot 2y ago
        Exactly this. People say "unaccountable" but the follow up question is "for what?". The misinformation era means there's a gulf of frequently incorrect assumptions about what the Federal agencies actually do.
      - try_the_bass 2y ago
        Again, if these agencies are never actually held accountable, this is functionally identical to "unaccountable". I mean, what if Congress created them to be unaccountable? Then both things would be true!
        exe34 2y ago
        Are you claiming the fbi has never been called to testify before Congress? or are you claiming that it didn't happen enough? or that it didn't happen for the things you personally wanted it to happen over? these are very different situations, and it appears you wish to defend the motte and get the bailey for free?
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        try_the_bass 2y ago
        No? I wouldn't consider the FBI to be an "unaccountable organization". I never said all government organizations are unaccountable? Just that (practically-speaking) some organizations are unaccountable because they rarely (or never) are called to account by those who are supposed to hold them accountable. This could be due to them simply being a low-stakes organization that demands very little attention, for all I know! Interesting that you call out a specific fallacy whilst bringing your own strawman into play!
rayiner 2y ago
> For another example, take the frequent neofascist argument that the federal agencies are "unaccountable" without being under the direct command of the President It’s not “neofascist” lol, it’s just what the constitution says. The first sentence of article II: “ The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” It’s not Congress’s job to hold executive branch employees accountable any more than it’s Congress’s job to hold judicial law clerks in the courts accountable. It’s the President’s job, in whom the executive power is vested. That’s also reflected in the appointments clause. Anyone with discretionary authority must be either appointed by the president, or report to someone who is: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf. The whole point is to make the executive branch highly responsive to Presidenfial elections.
- digitaltrees 2y ago
  Congress is supposed to hold both employees and departments accountable. Employees are held accountable via the advise and consent power so that the leadership of departments isn't beholden to the executive. Departments are held accountable by the budget process, don't do a good job, don't get appropriations. The executive power is merely administrative and logistical.
- mindslight 2y ago
  The executive power, as being laid out in the Constitution. Not all executive power. This is plainly clear by appointments requiring approval of the Senate. If the "executive branch" were meant to be a singular top-down command structure, then such approval (or ability to impeach) would not be required. This push for an authoritarian command structure is one pillar of what makes the term "fascist" appropriate. I was not talking about the accountability of individual employees according to the law. The accountability I was talking about was the mandate for an agency. That was set by Congress when they created the agency, and can thus be clarified or changed by Congress at any time.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    “The executive power” means “all the executive power,” in the same way “the judicial power” in Article III means “all the judicial power.” Or do you think the other branches can properly exercise some judicial power? Advice-and-consent isn’t an exercise of executive power, it’s a check on executive power, just like impeachment. Sure, Congress can change or clarify the mandate of an agency, and the President must go along with that. But what we’re talking about with Trump is accountability for individual employees and the discretionary conduct of executive branch employees. For example, Congress has appropriated $1.7 billion for USAID operations, “for purposes of the carrying out the 1961 foreign development act” (paraphrasing). I agree the executive must ultimately spend that money within the broad mandate of the appropriation. But do you spend that money on DEI in Serbia or pro-natalism in South Korea? Clearly the President should be able to decide that.
_heimdall 2y ago
Are you arguing that only Republicans have controlled Congress singe Bush Jr was in office? Or that Congress held primary decision making authority behind the number of executive orders signed by presidents since then?
- vkou 2y ago
  > Are you arguing that only Republicans have controlled Congress singe Bush Jr was in office? Republicans have been able to stop congress from doing anything they didn't like since... 2010. They can't even get their shit together to pass legislature when they control congress, but they've always been able to prevent it from passing legislature, or exercising oversight. Just like they are doing right now.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Both sides have been able to stop congress if I'm not mistaken (I don't think we've had a super majority for a while now). The republicans have been more willing to pull that lever, but the system is designed such that its a perfectly legal lever to pull.
- mindslight 2y ago
  No and no. I'm referring to Gingrich's attitude of never crossing the aisle leading to Congressional gridlock. And how a functioning Congress could have easily passed laws nullifying most executive orders (especially the ones grabbing extra power). It was precisely the power vacuum of Congress that enabled the strong executive.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Anyone in congress can cross the aisle though, the hesitation to do so isn't unique. I do agree though that inept congresses has allowed the executive branch to act so powerfully. My only caveat is that congress first had to give those powers to the executive such that they could eventually be abused. Earlier congresses didn't have to choose to empower the executive branch with so much authority.

try_the_bass 2y ago

> No, the agencies were created by congress, and have always been accountable to Congress. But Congress hasn't been doing its job, which is why they seem unaccountable. If Congress hasn't been doing its job, then they don't just seem unaccountable, they actually are.

mindslight 2y ago
The levers of accountability could have been pulled any time, so it stands to say that they were still accountable. Perhaps they weren't held accountable as much as you or I would have liked. But the authority was there. But either way I don't really see what greater point you're trying to make.
- try_the_bass 2y ago
  Just that there is no practical difference between "seeming unaccountable" and "being unaccountable", especially if, as you say, "the levers of accountability could have been pulled", but weren't. If the departments aren't being held accountable, they are, by definition, acting unaccountably. You seemed to disagree, and be trying to make a distinction where no practical difference can be found. You also seem to agree that they haven't been held accountable, which makes this apparent distinction even less coherent! This kind of just comes across as contrarian, or perhaps sophistry to avoid agreeing with an apparent opponent?
  - exe34 2y ago
    > but weren't Does that imply unaccountable, or does it mean Congress thought they were doing a good job?
    - XorNot 2y ago
      Exactly this. People say "unaccountable" but the follow up question is "for what?". The misinformation era means there's a gulf of frequently incorrect assumptions about what the Federal agencies actually do.
    - try_the_bass 2y ago
      Again, if these agencies are never actually held accountable, this is functionally identical to "unaccountable". I mean, what if Congress created them to be unaccountable? Then both things would be true!
      - exe34 2y ago
        Are you claiming the fbi has never been called to testify before Congress? or are you claiming that it didn't happen enough? or that it didn't happen for the things you personally wanted it to happen over? these are very different situations, and it appears you wish to defend the motte and get the bailey for free?
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        try_the_bass 2y ago
        No? I wouldn't consider the FBI to be an "unaccountable organization". I never said all government organizations are unaccountable? Just that (practically-speaking) some organizations are unaccountable because they rarely (or never) are called to account by those who are supposed to hold them accountable. This could be due to them simply being a low-stakes organization that demands very little attention, for all I know! Interesting that you call out a specific fallacy whilst bringing your own strawman into play!

rayiner 2y ago

> For another example, take the frequent neofascist argument that the federal agencies are "unaccountable" without being under the direct command of the President It’s not “neofascist” lol, it’s just what the constitution says. The first sentence of article II: “ The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” It’s not Congress’s job to hold executive branch employees accountable any more than it’s Congress’s job to hold judicial law clerks in the courts accountable. It’s the President’s job, in whom the executive power is vested. That’s also reflected in the appointments clause. Anyone with discretionary authority must be either appointed by the president, or report to someone who is: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf. The whole point is to make the executive branch highly responsive to Presidenfial elections.

digitaltrees 2y ago
Congress is supposed to hold both employees and departments accountable. Employees are held accountable via the advise and consent power so that the leadership of departments isn't beholden to the executive. Departments are held accountable by the budget process, don't do a good job, don't get appropriations. The executive power is merely administrative and logistical.
mindslight 2y ago
The executive power, as being laid out in the Constitution. Not all executive power. This is plainly clear by appointments requiring approval of the Senate. If the "executive branch" were meant to be a singular top-down command structure, then such approval (or ability to impeach) would not be required. This push for an authoritarian command structure is one pillar of what makes the term "fascist" appropriate. I was not talking about the accountability of individual employees according to the law. The accountability I was talking about was the mandate for an agency. That was set by Congress when they created the agency, and can thus be clarified or changed by Congress at any time.
- rayiner 2y ago
  “The executive power” means “all the executive power,” in the same way “the judicial power” in Article III means “all the judicial power.” Or do you think the other branches can properly exercise some judicial power? Advice-and-consent isn’t an exercise of executive power, it’s a check on executive power, just like impeachment. Sure, Congress can change or clarify the mandate of an agency, and the President must go along with that. But what we’re talking about with Trump is accountability for individual employees and the discretionary conduct of executive branch employees. For example, Congress has appropriated $1.7 billion for USAID operations, “for purposes of the carrying out the 1961 foreign development act” (paraphrasing). I agree the executive must ultimately spend that money within the broad mandate of the appropriation. But do you spend that money on DEI in Serbia or pro-natalism in South Korea? Clearly the President should be able to decide that.

_heimdall 2y ago

Are you arguing that only Republicans have controlled Congress singe Bush Jr was in office? Or that Congress held primary decision making authority behind the number of executive orders signed by presidents since then?

vkou 2y ago
> Are you arguing that only Republicans have controlled Congress singe Bush Jr was in office? Republicans have been able to stop congress from doing anything they didn't like since... 2010. They can't even get their shit together to pass legislature when they control congress, but they've always been able to prevent it from passing legislature, or exercising oversight. Just like they are doing right now.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Both sides have been able to stop congress if I'm not mistaken (I don't think we've had a super majority for a while now). The republicans have been more willing to pull that lever, but the system is designed such that its a perfectly legal lever to pull.
mindslight 2y ago
No and no. I'm referring to Gingrich's attitude of never crossing the aisle leading to Congressional gridlock. And how a functioning Congress could have easily passed laws nullifying most executive orders (especially the ones grabbing extra power). It was precisely the power vacuum of Congress that enabled the strong executive.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Anyone in congress can cross the aisle though, the hesitation to do so isn't unique. I do agree though that inept congresses has allowed the executive branch to act so powerfully. My only caveat is that congress first had to give those powers to the executive such that they could eventually be abused. Earlier congresses didn't have to choose to empower the executive branch with so much authority.