3 ms·

> Lots of this junk is simply against the law. Perhaps. A lot of it is also the flip side of an executive order conjuring more government into existence. The

by LanceH 2y ago

> Lots of this junk is simply against the law. Perhaps. A lot of it is also the flip side of an executive order conjuring more government into existence. The escalation of executive order from administration to administration, and the reliance on courts to make law results in what we have going on today. Everyone was perfectly fine with the President doing whatever he wanted a couple months ago. Everyone was fine with the vague executive orders being treated as law. At some point one party needs reign in the presidency while they have it. Democrats chose not to, then ran a losing campaign with a candidate voters did not nominate. Neither party is principled on a national level. There are some individual exceptions, but they are few and far between.

seanmcdirmid 2y ago
> Everyone was perfectly fine with the President doing whatever he wanted a couple months ago. Everyone was fine with the president doing whatever he wanted a couple of months ago because he didn't abuse his power like the new guy is. When you have someone with self control and the best interests of the country in mind, you don't actually need to reign in presidential power like you suggest, and we just haven't had a Trump in the presidency enough to call a constitutional convention. > At some point one party needs reign in the presidency while they have it. Democrats chose not to, then ran a losing campaign with a candidate voters did not nominate. This is impossible given the threshold for a constitutional convention. 2/3rd for proposal and 3/4th for ratification, we are just way too divided for that unless Trump messes up really really bad and we actually survive as the same country to pick up the pieces. The supreme court is the only other body that could interpret the law to restrict executive power, but it is stacked with Trump appointees who have new interpretations of unrestricted executive power, so we shouldn't expect much from them.
- ModernMech 2y ago
  > This is impossible given the threshold for a constitutional convention. Well, it's also just not true that Democrats didn't reign in the power of the presidency when they had control. They passed a bill and Biden signed it which makes it even more explicitly illegal for President to impound money like Trump tried last term, and is again doing now. That's why we can emphatically say what he's doing is illegal, because he's breaking a law that was passed to curb exactly what he's doing. Moreover, when Trump argued in court he had broad presidential immunity, Biden argued against that position, thus arguing to limit his own power. It's hard to claim both sides abuse power when one side claiming total presidential immunity to use the military to kill his political opponents, and the other side says no. The difference couldn't be more stark.

by LanceH 2y ago

seanmcdirmid 2y ago

> Everyone was perfectly fine with the President doing whatever he wanted a couple months ago. Everyone was fine with the president doing whatever he wanted a couple of months ago because he didn't abuse his power like the new guy is. When you have someone with self control and the best interests of the country in mind, you don't actually need to reign in presidential power like you suggest, and we just haven't had a Trump in the presidency enough to call a constitutional convention. > At some point one party needs reign in the presidency while they have it. Democrats chose not to, then ran a losing campaign with a candidate voters did not nominate. This is impossible given the threshold for a constitutional convention. 2/3rd for proposal and 3/4th for ratification, we are just way too divided for that unless Trump messes up really really bad and we actually survive as the same country to pick up the pieces. The supreme court is the only other body that could interpret the law to restrict executive power, but it is stacked with Trump appointees who have new interpretations of unrestricted executive power, so we shouldn't expect much from them.

ModernMech 2y ago
> This is impossible given the threshold for a constitutional convention. Well, it's also just not true that Democrats didn't reign in the power of the presidency when they had control. They passed a bill and Biden signed it which makes it even more explicitly illegal for President to impound money like Trump tried last term, and is again doing now. That's why we can emphatically say what he's doing is illegal, because he's breaking a law that was passed to curb exactly what he's doing. Moreover, when Trump argued in court he had broad presidential immunity, Biden argued against that position, thus arguing to limit his own power. It's hard to claim both sides abuse power when one side claiming total presidential immunity to use the military to kill his political opponents, and the other side says no. The difference couldn't be more stark.