5 ms·

The risk of undoing progress so quickly is only possible after nearly a century spent centralizing the very authority that makes a quick undo possible. The exe

The risk of undoing progress so quickly is only possible after nearly a century spent centralizing the very authority that makes a quick undo possible. The executive branch shouldn't have nearly as much authority as it does and anything we want to be difficult to be undone should be protected by law, with a legislative body needing something akin to a 2/3s vote to change it. Instead we have a massive, powerful executive branch and legislators that can wield way too much power with a simple majority.

cardamomo 2y ago
In theory, that isn't too far from the system we have. The President was never meant to have so much authority, and Congress already requires a 2/3 majority in order to make certain kinds of decisions, including overruling a presidential veto.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Didn't congress change the rules a few years ago on only needing a simple majority for more things? I was living out if the country st the time and didn't keep up, I could be mistaken there.
  - cardamomo 2y ago
    There was some debate whether or not to remove the rule requiring a 60% vote to end filibusters in the Senate. Because this rule still stands, most laws cannot pass without 60 Senators' votes. Budget reconciliation bills, however, can be advanced with only a simple majority of the Senate. Though this is not a recent rules change, much recent legislation has gone through the reconciliation process to avoid the supermajority requirement.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      Thanks! That must be the debate I remember happening and thought they actually made the change.
deepsun 2y ago
No, it's not only executive branch. People voted in Trump adorers to majority in both Senate and House of Representatives.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  If the voting public of a democracy fairly elected so many people to office like that, I don't really know what we can complain about. Democracy would have worked in that scenario, and society would just have bifurcated enough that the slight minority lost most power and very much disagrees with the direction. Congress does have to act pike adults though and do their job of keeping the executive branch in check. If they don't the system is just fundamentally broken and the only reasonable choice is to throw it out and start fresh.
  - wrs 2y ago
    The word “fairly” is doing a lot of work there. There has been a lot of success on one side to tilt things with redistricting and voter suppression since the 80s.
    - bigfudge 2y ago
      Just wait till 2028!
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      Redistricting and voter suppression are definitely a problem. If they were both done in a way that was technically legal though, we can't be too angry about it before we change the laws that allowed it in the first place. Fairness in the context of an election only means that it was done in accordance to the existing laws. Maybe equal access to voting needs to be on that list too, but I'd expect that to be covered by voting laws.
      - wrs 2y ago
        The purpose of the laws should be to ensure fairness. Fairness is not defined by the law. Unless you consider it was fair for women not to be able to vote, when that was the law. There have been many attempts to fix districting laws, but of course those changes have to be approved by representatives elected under the previous laws. It has been difficult to challenge these in court because it’s hard to argue whether a districting is “fair”. There has been a little progress on challenging some districting based on a statistical argument that shows the one-party advantage resulting from the particular districting is extremely unlikely to be the result of chance.
scott_w 2y ago
Under the constitution, the US federal government has far less power than, say the UK government does in comparison. Yet, if the other branches of government show no interest in constraining it, then it’ll expand rapidly. I actually wonder if the problem the USA has is that its system has no override function like the UK does under the Parliament Act 1918. I see a lot of frustration that Congress has been deadlocked for nearly 2 decades (mostly by Republicans) so it’s no surprise the average voter demands change and wants the executive branch to take all the power.
- pyuser583 2y ago
  The UK's Constitution is the result of a literal war between the legislative and executive branches. The legislative branch won, and cut the King's head off.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  A weaker federal government was always our design though. Really until the last century, our federal government was extremely weak and limited in authority. It wasn't until around FDR that we started seeing a shift if power to the federal government, often specifically to the executive branch. The large executive branch has been growing since steadily since FDR though, that isn't a recent reaction to gridlock. There's a good argument that gridlock is a feature of our system meant to slow it down intentionally. We're seeing now how jarring it can be to have the government completely change source every 4 years, gridlock and bureaucracy help smooth that out. We could be making it worse by demanding gridlock be avoided through executive actions and similar.
  - scott_w 2y ago
    Compared to historic USA, perhaps, but compared to OTHER COUNTRIES, the US system has insane gridlock and, right now, a very unhappy public. What I’m pointing to is not that more power should shift to the executive but that it should be given to the legislature, and could happen in a way that reduces this gridlock. Compare to the UK’s Parliament Act, which allows the Commons to override the Lords if it passes the same legislation in two sessions. It means that overriding isn’t free (it takes 1-2 years of focused effort) but critical legislation can’t be blocked. Combined with strict timetables that force rejection of legislation that isn’t passed in its allotted time, you bypass the pocket veto, too. Compromise is preferred but, if the upper house refuses to play ball, the threat of ramming it through anyway always exists to keep it in check.
hackyhacky 2y ago
> The executive branch shouldn't have nearly as much authority as it does and anything we want to be difficult to be undone should be protected by law It doesn't matter if rights are protected by law, if the executive branch has no intention to enforce that law. Right now the executive branch is plainly violating laws established by Congress, and there is no one to stop them.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  The legislative and judicial branches are both expected to hold the executive accountable if it breaks the law. If that doesn't happen our system is fundamentally broken, we might as well throw it out and start over.
  - xnx 2y ago
    Is there any democratic system that is safe from democratically voting to dissolve the democracy and replace it with whatever autocracy/kakistocracy/oligarchy we've got now?
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      No, that's a fundamental risk built into democracy. If any minority group has the power to overrule a majority vote, regardless of what the vote is for, then you don't really have a democracy.
    - vkou 2y ago
      No, every country is one election away from this shit-show. Which is why under no circumstances you should ever elect anyone who will send yours in that direction. Canadians, take note, the CPC only detached its lips from Trump's backside because they needed to come up for air. At minimum, don't elect people who staged failed coups. They and their supporters will not ever act like they are bound by law.
- nradov 2y ago
  The executive branch has blatantly violated numerous laws but so far they have still obeyed court orders which explicitly required them to follow those laws. The real Constitutional crisis will come if they decide to openly defy a federal court order. I would also note that while the current Trump administration has broken federal laws at an accelerated rate, the previous Biden administration did much the same thing on a smaller scale. People here on HN frequently make excuses for Biden's illegal student loan forgiveness program because they liked the results but if we want to preserve the rule of law then it needs to apply to every program. In the long run allowing unchecked growth of executive branch power and the administrative state will be bad for everyone. https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-biden-student-loan-forgiveness-program/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-strikes-dow...
_DeadFred_ 2y ago
And sadly the Dems were all too willing to consolidate this power in the Executive because of expediency.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Both parties have consolidated power to the executive branch for decades, this isn't a one party problem.
  - throwaway48476 2y ago
    It started with Lincoln and was expanded by Wilson and FDR.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      That's fair, Lincoln did kick it off. I've always considered it more that Lincoln crested the precedent that was only really used layer by FDR, but maybe that's ignoring nuance of how powers were expanded between the two.
      - throwaway48476 2y ago
        Before Lincoln states had much more power. Both Lincoln and Wilson curtailed civil liberties. Wilson created the income tax which gave the president a large source of income. FDR created the bureaucracy that spends the income tax money.

cardamomo 2y ago

In theory, that isn't too far from the system we have. The President was never meant to have so much authority, and Congress already requires a 2/3 majority in order to make certain kinds of decisions, including overruling a presidential veto.

_heimdall 2y ago
Didn't congress change the rules a few years ago on only needing a simple majority for more things? I was living out if the country st the time and didn't keep up, I could be mistaken there.
- cardamomo 2y ago
  There was some debate whether or not to remove the rule requiring a 60% vote to end filibusters in the Senate. Because this rule still stands, most laws cannot pass without 60 Senators' votes. Budget reconciliation bills, however, can be advanced with only a simple majority of the Senate. Though this is not a recent rules change, much recent legislation has gone through the reconciliation process to avoid the supermajority requirement.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Thanks! That must be the debate I remember happening and thought they actually made the change.

deepsun 2y ago

No, it's not only executive branch. People voted in Trump adorers to majority in both Senate and House of Representatives.

_heimdall 2y ago
If the voting public of a democracy fairly elected so many people to office like that, I don't really know what we can complain about. Democracy would have worked in that scenario, and society would just have bifurcated enough that the slight minority lost most power and very much disagrees with the direction. Congress does have to act pike adults though and do their job of keeping the executive branch in check. If they don't the system is just fundamentally broken and the only reasonable choice is to throw it out and start fresh.
- wrs 2y ago
  The word “fairly” is doing a lot of work there. There has been a lot of success on one side to tilt things with redistricting and voter suppression since the 80s.
  - bigfudge 2y ago
    Just wait till 2028!
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Redistricting and voter suppression are definitely a problem. If they were both done in a way that was technically legal though, we can't be too angry about it before we change the laws that allowed it in the first place. Fairness in the context of an election only means that it was done in accordance to the existing laws. Maybe equal access to voting needs to be on that list too, but I'd expect that to be covered by voting laws.
    - wrs 2y ago
      The purpose of the laws should be to ensure fairness. Fairness is not defined by the law. Unless you consider it was fair for women not to be able to vote, when that was the law. There have been many attempts to fix districting laws, but of course those changes have to be approved by representatives elected under the previous laws. It has been difficult to challenge these in court because it’s hard to argue whether a districting is “fair”. There has been a little progress on challenging some districting based on a statistical argument that shows the one-party advantage resulting from the particular districting is extremely unlikely to be the result of chance.

scott_w 2y ago

Under the constitution, the US federal government has far less power than, say the UK government does in comparison. Yet, if the other branches of government show no interest in constraining it, then it’ll expand rapidly. I actually wonder if the problem the USA has is that its system has no override function like the UK does under the Parliament Act 1918. I see a lot of frustration that Congress has been deadlocked for nearly 2 decades (mostly by Republicans) so it’s no surprise the average voter demands change and wants the executive branch to take all the power.

pyuser583 2y ago
The UK's Constitution is the result of a literal war between the legislative and executive branches. The legislative branch won, and cut the King's head off.
_heimdall 2y ago
A weaker federal government was always our design though. Really until the last century, our federal government was extremely weak and limited in authority. It wasn't until around FDR that we started seeing a shift if power to the federal government, often specifically to the executive branch. The large executive branch has been growing since steadily since FDR though, that isn't a recent reaction to gridlock. There's a good argument that gridlock is a feature of our system meant to slow it down intentionally. We're seeing now how jarring it can be to have the government completely change source every 4 years, gridlock and bureaucracy help smooth that out. We could be making it worse by demanding gridlock be avoided through executive actions and similar.
- scott_w 2y ago
  Compared to historic USA, perhaps, but compared to OTHER COUNTRIES, the US system has insane gridlock and, right now, a very unhappy public. What I’m pointing to is not that more power should shift to the executive but that it should be given to the legislature, and could happen in a way that reduces this gridlock. Compare to the UK’s Parliament Act, which allows the Commons to override the Lords if it passes the same legislation in two sessions. It means that overriding isn’t free (it takes 1-2 years of focused effort) but critical legislation can’t be blocked. Combined with strict timetables that force rejection of legislation that isn’t passed in its allotted time, you bypass the pocket veto, too. Compromise is preferred but, if the upper house refuses to play ball, the threat of ramming it through anyway always exists to keep it in check.

hackyhacky 2y ago

> The executive branch shouldn't have nearly as much authority as it does and anything we want to be difficult to be undone should be protected by law It doesn't matter if rights are protected by law, if the executive branch has no intention to enforce that law. Right now the executive branch is plainly violating laws established by Congress, and there is no one to stop them.

_heimdall 2y ago
The legislative and judicial branches are both expected to hold the executive accountable if it breaks the law. If that doesn't happen our system is fundamentally broken, we might as well throw it out and start over.
- xnx 2y ago
  Is there any democratic system that is safe from democratically voting to dissolve the democracy and replace it with whatever autocracy/kakistocracy/oligarchy we've got now?
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    No, that's a fundamental risk built into democracy. If any minority group has the power to overrule a majority vote, regardless of what the vote is for, then you don't really have a democracy.
  - vkou 2y ago
    No, every country is one election away from this shit-show. Which is why under no circumstances you should ever elect anyone who will send yours in that direction. Canadians, take note, the CPC only detached its lips from Trump's backside because they needed to come up for air. At minimum, don't elect people who staged failed coups. They and their supporters will not ever act like they are bound by law.
nradov 2y ago
The executive branch has blatantly violated numerous laws but so far they have still obeyed court orders which explicitly required them to follow those laws. The real Constitutional crisis will come if they decide to openly defy a federal court order. I would also note that while the current Trump administration has broken federal laws at an accelerated rate, the previous Biden administration did much the same thing on a smaller scale. People here on HN frequently make excuses for Biden's illegal student loan forgiveness program because they liked the results but if we want to preserve the rule of law then it needs to apply to every program. In the long run allowing unchecked growth of executive branch power and the administrative state will be bad for everyone. https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-biden-student-loan-forgiveness-program/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-strikes-dow...

_DeadFred_ 2y ago

And sadly the Dems were all too willing to consolidate this power in the Executive because of expediency.

_heimdall 2y ago
Both parties have consolidated power to the executive branch for decades, this isn't a one party problem.
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  It started with Lincoln and was expanded by Wilson and FDR.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    That's fair, Lincoln did kick it off. I've always considered it more that Lincoln crested the precedent that was only really used layer by FDR, but maybe that's ignoring nuance of how powers were expanded between the two.
    - throwaway48476 2y ago
      Before Lincoln states had much more power. Both Lincoln and Wilson curtailed civil liberties. Wilson created the income tax which gave the president a large source of income. FDR created the bureaucracy that spends the income tax money.