6 ms·
Not saying this is good or bad, but this doesn’t seem surprising. Isn’t the point of our government structure to stop any one person from acting like a king. I’
by tnel77 1y ago
Not saying this is good or bad, but this doesn’t seem surprising. Isn’t the point of our government structure to stop any one person from acting like a king. I’m surprised it took this long.
- duxup 1y agoChecks and balances are good things. Hopefully we see more.
- colechristensen 1y ago[flagged]
- pwarner 1y agoCongress seems to want a king?
- duxup 1y ago[flagged]
- klipt 1y agoBetter hope this bill that house republicans have passed dies in the senate, since in effect it lets Trump override the courts: https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-hidden-provision-in-the-big-ugly https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-hidden-provision-in-t...
- cardamomo 1y agoWhoa. It is scary, but not surprising, to me that GOP representatives slipped that into the bill.
- boroboro4 1y agoI think it might be struck down by Byrd rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_provision#Budget_Act_and_the_Byrd_Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_provision#Budget_Act_an...)
- deepsquirrelnet 1y agoThat sounds like immediately forcing a constitutional crisis. It’s essentially a coup of two branches against the third.
- fknorangesite 1y ago> It’s essentially a coup of Republicans Do not pretend otherwise.
- joshkel 1y agoI'm not sure how much difference that bill's clause makes in practice. As I understand it (courtesy of the "Advisory Opinions" legal podcast, but any misunderstandings are my own), the problem is that, if the executive branch is going to ignore the courts, then they're going to ignore the courts. A court can recommend prosecution for contempt, but prosecutors are part of the executive branch. A court could try and appoint their own prosecutor, but then the court is both judge and prosecutor - which goes against the US system's goal of an impartial and independent judiciary. The court could issue a fine for contempt, but then the government is paying a fine to the government? It could issue a sentence of jail time, but the executive branch administers the prisons and has the pardon power. I'm disgusted with the executive branch's actions and congressional GOP's enablement. And, since the administration at times seems to want a fig leaf of legality, maybe the bill would make a difference after all by giving them more coverage. But, overall, I'm not sure that it's the "game over" step change that some commentary makes it sound like it is. I could be misunderstanding - comments / counterarguments welcome.
- hn_acker 1y ago> And, since the administration at times seems to want a fig leaf of legality, maybe the bill would make a difference after all by giving them more coverage. Justice Alito and Justice Thomas in particular latch on to any fig leaf of legality to excuse the administration's out-of-court admissions of intent to break the law [1]: > If courts pay more attention to out-of-court presidential and Administration statements, that will be another example of how the “presumption of regularity”—”the courts’ baseline assumption that government officials act lawfully and in good faith,” as Alan Rozenshtein puts it—is in serious jeopardy. Justice Alito’s dissent to the A.A.R.P. order, in which Justice Thomas joined, shows that those two justices remain content to rely on the Government’s representation’s in court—and vexed that their colleagues apparently feel differently. > I'm not sure how much difference that bill's clause makes in practice. There are at least three massive problems aside from undermining the role of courts in enforcing their interpretations of the law. - The clause applies to both government-associated defendants and non-governmental defendants. [2] - Federal Rule 65(c) does not apply to final injunctions, but the wording of the clause might apply to final injunctions. [2] - The clause applies retroactively. [1] https://blog.dividedargument.com/p/in-the-trump-20-era-the-courts-are https://blog.dividedargument.com/p/in-the-trump-20-era-the-c... [2] https://blog.dividedargument.com/p/the-house-judiciary-committee-moves https://blog.dividedargument.com/p/the-house-judiciary-commi...
- megaman821 1y agoUsually I think saying both-sides is pretty lazy, but has any Congress in the last few decades done anything but delegate more of their authority to someone else? One party always complains about Executive Orders and interference when the other party is President, but then never curtails the power when they get a chance.
- yieldcrv 1y agoThere are things both sides do and it is valid for those things to annoy you and be your primary cause Campaign finance Trading on privileged information Voting as a bloc and not in favor of their constituents Being a useless and ignorable vocal opposition when their bloc is not in power, ignoring indiscretions when their bloc is in power
- MichaelZuo 1y agoHow does this relate to the parent comment? It seems like the parent is clearly asking for a concrete example.
- nkrisc 1y agoIn that regard, yes, both. However in that time they were never really faced with any president who would take the power granted anywhere near the extreme we see today. When that happened, one party recoiled in horror and the other cheered it on.
- megaman821 1y agoStuff like the Muslim ban was pretty bad the first round of Trump, but it didn't seem to motivate the Democrats to start limiting the Executive branch in any way when they got back to power. I am pretty sure, it will be the same next time they regain power.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- 1y ago
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 1y agoIsn't that every party currently in power?
- thuanao 1y agoNot Congress - Republicans, who have a congressional majority.
- l33tfr4gg3r 1y ago... for now, and barely.
- dylan604 1y agoWhat evidence do you have for this? The democrats are showing nothing that suggests they will take either chamber of congress. Even if they got control of the house and actually impeached, the results would be no different than the previous 2 impeachments where the senate took no action. Even if they get control of both chambers, they'd have to have an over whelming victory to reach enough seats to secure a conviction since it needs a 2/3 vote. The current administration is behaving exactly like they know this. They are also boosted by the fact that SCOTUS told essentially told POTUS that he can do whatevs without repercussions. He's even ignoring their direct orders, and still nothing. You can call me pessimistic, but these are just the facts of the situation. You're optimism is based on what?
- fach 1y agoHistory, particularly in the last 30 years where political polarization has significantly increased: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_midterm_election#Historical_record_of_midterm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_midterm_election... Trump lost 41 seats in the house in his first term and the administration wasn't anywhere near as polarizing. The voting bloc for mid-terms is very different from presidential elections.
- whoisthemachine 1y agoA plurality of Americans voted for this government, for better or worse. The courts are one of the primary avenues for the minority to express their will, but they move slowly, although slightly faster than congress.
- MBCook 1y agoThat assumes a fair vote, which is arguable. Between Gerrymandering, purging voter roles, suits over who is allowed on the ballot, ID checks and associated issues I’m not sure it’s so clear cut. He won under the conditions the election was performed under. That’s clear. I’m not sure I could call those fair after years of attacks on people’s voting rights.
- rayiner 1y agoThere are no “attacks on people’s voting rights.” It’s a canard Democrats trot out to energize their base, just like Republicans trot out lies about election fraud. For example, studies show voter ID doesn’t reduce turnout (but also doesn’t reduce fraud). https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/21/18230009/voter-id-laws-fraud-turnout-study-research https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/21/18230009/v.... Gerrymandering doesn’t affect the presidential election. But the GOP won the House popular vote by even more than Trump won the Presidential popular vote. Extensive post-election voter surveys showed that if everyone had voted, Trump would’ve won by 4.8 points: https://www.vox.com/politics/403364/tik-tok-young-voters-2024-election-democrats-david-shor https://www.vox.com/politics/403364/tik-tok-young-voters-202...
- thomastjeffery 1y agoYou are so dead wrong I don't even know where to start. Gerrymandering doesn't affect the presidential election? Surveys show how everyone would have voted? Do you even hear yourself?
- trealira 1y agoThere are attacks on people's voting rights, but gerrymandering actually doesn't affect the presidential election in the US. The electoral votes are chosen by statewide popular vote, except in Maine and Nebraska.
- twic 1y agoIt seems to me that between gerrymandering and the filibuster, congress is basically unable to pass normal legislation when either party has a majority. Hence why all sorts of stuff gets passed by budget reconcilation now, because that is exempt from filibustering. And also why the parties are so keen to find creative new ways of effecting change - if they can't pass laws, they can let the president do what he wants, and just not stop him.
- Auracle 1y agoWhy they haven't changed the filibuster back to the way it used to be (with actual speaking, but only needed a majority vote to pass things) boggles the mind.
- selimthegrim 1y agoGuarantee Clause forbids it.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- godelski 1y agoCan't happen unless 2/3rds of congress agree they want the same king
- martin82 1y agoCongress wants powerful lobbyists with truckloads of money. The people want a king. It's Democracy going exactly the way how Plato already described it.
- 0xy 1y agoThe Biden admin not only kept the first Trump admin's China tariffs in place but significantly expanded them under the same law. Was Biden acting like a king or does this analogy only go one way? https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/13/politics/china-tariffs-biden-trump https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/13/politics/china-tariffs-bi... https://web.archive.org/web/20250101032222/https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/09/13/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-new-actions-to-protect-american-consumers-workers-and-businesses-by-cracking-down-on-de-minimis-shipments-with-unsafe-unfairly-traded-products/ https://web.archive.org/web/20250101032222/https://www.white... "[The Biden admin intends to use] executive authority"
- MBCook 1y agoBut those weren’t under the emergency economics power law Trump is using this time right?
- ChrisLTD 1y agoAnd these tariffs apply to the entire world for some reason?
- koolba 1y agoThe rationale for universal tariffs is it prevents rerouting goods to circumvent their intent.
- alabastervlog 1y agoGod. The WTO penalties are gonna be epic (if much of this stuff ever actually goes into effect).
- 0xy 1y ago[flagged]
- Calavar 1y agoI believe you are correct. Biden used Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Trump has used the 1974 act, but he's also used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, which is what the trade court just ruled on. My understanding is the Trump admin's strategy of putting a tariff on every country as an opening to negotiations doesn't fly under the 1974 act, which only allows placing tariffs on a country if there is evidence that it has broken fair trade practices in the US.
- MBCook 1y agoYou’d think, but many recent events make that seem questionable at best.
- rayiner 1y ago> Isn’t the point of our government structure to stop any one person from acting like a king. That isn’t the “point” of our government structure. The constitution deliberately mixes an electorally accountable deliberative body (Congress), an electorally accountable unitary executive (the President), and a judiciary insulated from elections. As explained in Federalist 70, the executive is unitary and “vigorous,” by design: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed70.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed70.asp. Federalist 70 even brings up the example of Roman Dictators to illustrate the need for a strong executive: “Every man the least conversant in Roman story, knows how often that republic was obliged to take refuge in the absolute power of a single man, under the formidable title of Dictator, as well against the intrigues of ambitious individuals who aspired to the tyranny, and the seditions of whole classes of the community whose conduct threatened the existence of all government, as against the invasions of external enemies who menaced the conquest and destruction of Rome.” What the constitution seeks to avoid is consolidation of all the government’s powers under a single entity. The President is powerful and can act unilaterally, but must stick to exercising executive rather than legislative or judicial powers. So the real question with tariffs is whether one sees them as more of a general policy or a tool of foreign relations. The former is a power within the deliberative consideration of Congress. The latter sphere of authority is assigned to a singular President.
- growlNark 1y ago> What the constitution seeks to avoid is consolidation of all the government’s powers under a single entity Yes, wealthy inter-state individuals would be so much better. Right?
- roenxi 1y agoExactly so. It is quite difficult to come up with a wealthy non-state actor who's wreaked the same sort of havoc as a Hitler or Mao. Let alone even relatively minor players on the international stage who're responsible for billions to trillions in actual damages to people's living standards. The typical complaint against billionaires is stuff like their yacht is too big or people don't like one policy they took advantage of. It isn't really to the same scale. At their worst, wealthy non-state actors lobby powerful figures in government to act.
- zzzeek 1y ago[flagged]
- growlNark 1y ago> Isn’t the point of our government structure to stop any one person from acting like a king. America clearly forgot the workplace if this was the intent. I would also stop holding your breath if you're expecting courts to start acting in our interest.
- jumpman_miya 1y ago[dead]
- RHSeeger 1y ago> I’m surprised it took this long. So far, "it" isn't actually anything though. Trump, and the Republicans working with him, have been completely ignoring courts telling them to do things since day 1. Time and time again, he's been told by a court "you cannot (or must) do this" and he does completely the opposite (and, by he does, I mean he orders other to do it, and the follow that order). We are at the point where there is nothing lawful about his presidentship, but the Republicans just keep doing what he tells them to, anyways.
- paulddraper 1y agoYes and no. There is a preamble that describes the point of the constitution and kingship is no where mentioned. Also, kings involve hereditary selection, which is orthogonal to despotic rule which is what you are thinking of.