6 ms·

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 sh

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.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Honest question (including that since its sometimes hard to tell when written) - What additional authority doss the US legislative branch need? They have pretty wide authority to create any laws that don't violate our constitutional rights, I don't know how we could really expand that further (but my view is definitely biased since I grew up here). I think congress would be well within its rights to change their own rules to add time limits on legislation or required expiration on proposed bills, for example.
    - scott_w 2y ago
      You’re thinking too high level and not looking at the mechanics. Congress has no power to, say, give the House of Representatives override the Senate and President. In the UK, this is not only possible but happened in 1918. The USA would require a constitutional amendment which falls into the same deadlock problem. Some things do sit within Congress such as the Senate adopting the insane role allowing filibuster. However, this is also encouraged by the fact the Senate can kill legislation like this. Filibusters rarely happen in the UK Parliament because the majority party can force through legislation they feel is important enough. You say that deadlock is built in as though this is desirable. However the public just became so frustrated by the system that they just elected a madman to smash it to pieces. Encouraging compromise and working across the aisle is an excellent property in the US system. But that has broken down and I think part of the reason is there’s no mechanism to break the deadlock that can force parties back to the table.
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        We definitely agree on needing to better encourage compromise and collaboration. I'd much prefer that to be done by changing incentives rather than expanding powers though. The US political system is completely broken with regards to lobbying and campaign finance. All the money floating around makes it nearly impossible for representatives to work across the aisle, or to ignore the aisle and vote for what their own state wants regardless of party.
        2y ago
- araes 2y ago
  Sure, the system was designed to have gridlock, yet they're supposed to at least be able to operate the government. Currently, like pretty much every year lately, we're heading into March, And We Still Don't Have A Budget. Now they're talking about keeping the government running on auto-pilot budgets all the way to September. [1] Doesn't even help that it's Rep. Exec. branch, Rep. Senate, Rep. House, Rep. Supreme Court, and Rep. Governor majority. Still a stopgap CR land where nothing gets advanced. [1] https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/03/07/congress/house-dems-invoke-medicaid-cuts-in-warnings-over-government-shutdown-fight-00218222 https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/03/07/congress/ho...
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Agreed the budget should be a non-starter. Meaning, they shouldn't be allowed to punt on agreeing to a budget deadline. The budget is a weird topic when we consistently spend trillions in debt. I've found it hard for me to take budget debates too seriously when the idea of running such a deficit seems completely against any fundamental financial plan. I'd care more about budget deadlines and temporary agreements if they were required to agree to a balanced budget.

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.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Honest question (including that since its sometimes hard to tell when written) - What additional authority doss the US legislative branch need? They have pretty wide authority to create any laws that don't violate our constitutional rights, I don't know how we could really expand that further (but my view is definitely biased since I grew up here). I think congress would be well within its rights to change their own rules to add time limits on legislation or required expiration on proposed bills, for example.
  - scott_w 2y ago
    You’re thinking too high level and not looking at the mechanics. Congress has no power to, say, give the House of Representatives override the Senate and President. In the UK, this is not only possible but happened in 1918. The USA would require a constitutional amendment which falls into the same deadlock problem. Some things do sit within Congress such as the Senate adopting the insane role allowing filibuster. However, this is also encouraged by the fact the Senate can kill legislation like this. Filibusters rarely happen in the UK Parliament because the majority party can force through legislation they feel is important enough. You say that deadlock is built in as though this is desirable. However the public just became so frustrated by the system that they just elected a madman to smash it to pieces. Encouraging compromise and working across the aisle is an excellent property in the US system. But that has broken down and I think part of the reason is there’s no mechanism to break the deadlock that can force parties back to the table.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      We definitely agree on needing to better encourage compromise and collaboration. I'd much prefer that to be done by changing incentives rather than expanding powers though. The US political system is completely broken with regards to lobbying and campaign finance. All the money floating around makes it nearly impossible for representatives to work across the aisle, or to ignore the aisle and vote for what their own state wants regardless of party.
      - 2y ago
araes 2y ago
Sure, the system was designed to have gridlock, yet they're supposed to at least be able to operate the government. Currently, like pretty much every year lately, we're heading into March, And We Still Don't Have A Budget. Now they're talking about keeping the government running on auto-pilot budgets all the way to September. [1] Doesn't even help that it's Rep. Exec. branch, Rep. Senate, Rep. House, Rep. Supreme Court, and Rep. Governor majority. Still a stopgap CR land where nothing gets advanced. [1] https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/03/07/congress/house-dems-invoke-medicaid-cuts-in-warnings-over-government-shutdown-fight-00218222 https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/03/07/congress/ho...
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Agreed the budget should be a non-starter. Meaning, they shouldn't be allowed to punt on agreeing to a budget deadline. The budget is a weird topic when we consistently spend trillions in debt. I've found it hard for me to take budget debates too seriously when the idea of running such a deficit seems completely against any fundamental financial plan. I'd care more about budget deadlines and temporary agreements if they were required to agree to a balanced budget.