5 ms·

How do we the people change or influence the federal government if the agencies are independent from elections? In your model, do federal agencies all become l

How do we the people change or influence the federal government if the agencies are independent from elections? In your model, do federal agencies all become like the Supreme Court? Lifetime appointments chosen by the President at the time someone retires?

englishrookie 1y ago
You do that by voting people into power who pass laws which provide a framework for these agencies to operate in. Putting these agencies under direct control of a central government (the federal government in this case) will inevitably erode civic society. See Hungary, Poland (until recently) and Turkey.
- jpadkins 1y ago
  So Congress creates agencies and also selects who runs those agencies? Can Congress fire the heads of these agencies? The management team? Or all employees of the agency? So what role does the executive branch have? Should we amend the US constitution to state that federal agencies are now run by the legislative branch?
  - aredox 1y ago
    The executive branch is there to execute the decisions of the judiciary branch, following the rules and laws set by the legislative branch. Are you completely unaware of the principle of separation of powers conceptualized 250 years ago which is a cornerstone of XXth century democracies across the world?
    - jpadkins 1y ago
      Yes, I am very aware. And the executive branch is led by a democratically elected President who appoints the heads of the departments and is responsible for the successful execution of the laws. There is no concept of an "independent" (of the 3 branches) federal agency in the US constitution. I thought it was a bizarre concept, and I asked if you could explain it or why you think it's beneficial. Instead, you choose to devolve into personal attacks (probably because you don't have any good arguments or explanations).
      - aredox 1y ago
        >Instead, you choose to devolve into personal attacks (probably because you don't have any good arguments or explanations). Independant agencies have been set up since the 1880s. Do you think you are the first person to "ask questions"? Did you do a modicum of research on the topic before "asking questions"? Do you know the existence of the internet, of google search and of books? Do you know about "Chesterton's Fence"?
        jpadkins 1y ago
        I've done some research. I didn't find any arguments on why un-elected bureaucracies are better than the status quo. The Federal Reserve is the currently most independent "agency" we have (privately owned corporation with a board chosen by Presidents). It's hardly a poster child for good governance. Can you imagine if the DOJ was owned and operated by private corporations, where Congress or the President would pick a board? Sounds like tyranny to me. I asked genuine questions if anyone had arguments for why this is better. Clearly you don't have any.
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
        You seem to have drawn conclusions based on your assumptions: > So Congress creates agencies and also selects who runs those agencies? Can Congress fire the heads of these agencies? The management team? Or all employees of the agency? > So what role does the executive branch have? Should we amend the US constitution to state that federal agencies are now run by the legislative branch? The second set of questions are irrelevant unless the first set of questions are answered affirmatively (hint: they’re not and you didn’t understand the point you were replying to). I agree that others are being rude in their interactions with you here but I also don’t really see your questions worth engaging more than I already have.
        AnimalMuppet 1y ago
        > It's hardly a poster child for good governance. I'd like to see your evidence that it's badly governed, rather than just a one-line condemnation. Its job is to control the value of the dollar. I think they've done a very good job of that in some very difficult circumstances. Not perfect, but very good. (Compare the crash of 2008 to, say, the Panic of 1893.) Do you think that, if the Federal Reserve was setting the interest rate at the president's command, that we would be better off? If so, I think you are living in a fantasy land.
tialaramex 1y ago
That your mind went to the US Supreme Court, a notoriously non-independent body is symptomatic of how rotten the US was already decades before this. You need actual independent process. It takes real, sustained effort to create the culture where such processes thrive, where people are proud of their independence and their commitment to an ideal rather than an individual - and if a "populist" tries to assault them you need to actually defend them because they are the whole point of having a government by the people and not "Well these two rich guys decided..."
- jpadkins 1y ago
  Help me understand how an independent government agency (especially a federal police force like the FBI, which can investigate, arrest and kill people) is compatible with a democratic government. Who exactly are they independent of? How are they responsive to the will of the people? It sounds like you are saying they should be independent of the elected President. If so, who are the accountable to and how?
  - aredox 1y ago
    >How are they responsive to the will of the people? What is this "will of the people" you are talking about? What people are you talking about? How do you infer their "will"? This current president has been elected by 49.8 percent of the votes cast for president. Due to the electoral college, a Wyoming voter has 3.6 times the power of a California voter. His approval rating is already negative, and is policies poll negatively too[0]. What mandate does he have? What exactly is the will of the people and why has it changed completely in 6 months? What policy is right when the will of the people changes completely every six months? [0] https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker > If so, who are the accountable to and how? To the courts? According to the laws and statutes voted by Congress? I mean, have you ever educated yourself about your own political system before asking those questions? Shouldn't you have?
    - jpadkins 1y ago
tzs 1y ago
> How do we the people change or influence the federal government if the agencies are independent from elections? Congress creates an agency. The President nominates the agency's top leadership and the Senate votes on those nominations. The terms of these top leaders are longer than the term of the President and are staggered so that each new President will have a chance to replace some of the agency's top leadership but not all of them.

englishrookie 1y ago

You do that by voting people into power who pass laws which provide a framework for these agencies to operate in. Putting these agencies under direct control of a central government (the federal government in this case) will inevitably erode civic society. See Hungary, Poland (until recently) and Turkey.

jpadkins 1y ago
So Congress creates agencies and also selects who runs those agencies? Can Congress fire the heads of these agencies? The management team? Or all employees of the agency? So what role does the executive branch have? Should we amend the US constitution to state that federal agencies are now run by the legislative branch?
- aredox 1y ago
  The executive branch is there to execute the decisions of the judiciary branch, following the rules and laws set by the legislative branch. Are you completely unaware of the principle of separation of powers conceptualized 250 years ago which is a cornerstone of XXth century democracies across the world?
  - jpadkins 1y ago
    Yes, I am very aware. And the executive branch is led by a democratically elected President who appoints the heads of the departments and is responsible for the successful execution of the laws. There is no concept of an "independent" (of the 3 branches) federal agency in the US constitution. I thought it was a bizarre concept, and I asked if you could explain it or why you think it's beneficial. Instead, you choose to devolve into personal attacks (probably because you don't have any good arguments or explanations).
    - aredox 1y ago
      >Instead, you choose to devolve into personal attacks (probably because you don't have any good arguments or explanations). Independant agencies have been set up since the 1880s. Do you think you are the first person to "ask questions"? Did you do a modicum of research on the topic before "asking questions"? Do you know the existence of the internet, of google search and of books? Do you know about "Chesterton's Fence"?
      - jpadkins 1y ago
        I've done some research. I didn't find any arguments on why un-elected bureaucracies are better than the status quo. The Federal Reserve is the currently most independent "agency" we have (privately owned corporation with a board chosen by Presidents). It's hardly a poster child for good governance. Can you imagine if the DOJ was owned and operated by private corporations, where Congress or the President would pick a board? Sounds like tyranny to me. I asked genuine questions if anyone had arguments for why this is better. Clearly you don't have any.
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
        You seem to have drawn conclusions based on your assumptions: > So Congress creates agencies and also selects who runs those agencies? Can Congress fire the heads of these agencies? The management team? Or all employees of the agency? > So what role does the executive branch have? Should we amend the US constitution to state that federal agencies are now run by the legislative branch? The second set of questions are irrelevant unless the first set of questions are answered affirmatively (hint: they’re not and you didn’t understand the point you were replying to). I agree that others are being rude in their interactions with you here but I also don’t really see your questions worth engaging more than I already have.
        AnimalMuppet 1y ago
        > It's hardly a poster child for good governance. I'd like to see your evidence that it's badly governed, rather than just a one-line condemnation. Its job is to control the value of the dollar. I think they've done a very good job of that in some very difficult circumstances. Not perfect, but very good. (Compare the crash of 2008 to, say, the Panic of 1893.) Do you think that, if the Federal Reserve was setting the interest rate at the president's command, that we would be better off? If so, I think you are living in a fantasy land.

tialaramex 1y ago

That your mind went to the US Supreme Court, a notoriously non-independent body is symptomatic of how rotten the US was already decades before this. You need actual independent process. It takes real, sustained effort to create the culture where such processes thrive, where people are proud of their independence and their commitment to an ideal rather than an individual - and if a "populist" tries to assault them you need to actually defend them because they are the whole point of having a government by the people and not "Well these two rich guys decided..."

jpadkins 1y ago
Help me understand how an independent government agency (especially a federal police force like the FBI, which can investigate, arrest and kill people) is compatible with a democratic government. Who exactly are they independent of? How are they responsive to the will of the people? It sounds like you are saying they should be independent of the elected President. If so, who are the accountable to and how?
- aredox 1y ago
  >How are they responsive to the will of the people? What is this "will of the people" you are talking about? What people are you talking about? How do you infer their "will"? This current president has been elected by 49.8 percent of the votes cast for president. Due to the electoral college, a Wyoming voter has 3.6 times the power of a California voter. His approval rating is already negative, and is policies poll negatively too[0]. What mandate does he have? What exactly is the will of the people and why has it changed completely in 6 months? What policy is right when the will of the people changes completely every six months? [0] https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker > If so, who are the accountable to and how? To the courts? According to the laws and statutes voted by Congress? I mean, have you ever educated yourself about your own political system before asking those questions? Shouldn't you have?
  - jpadkins 1y ago

tzs 1y ago

> How do we the people change or influence the federal government if the agencies are independent from elections? Congress creates an agency. The President nominates the agency's top leadership and the Senate votes on those nominations. The terms of these top leaders are longer than the term of the President and are staggered so that each new President will have a chance to replace some of the agency's top leadership but not all of them.