3 ms·

If an executive order can put grants under political control, they were already under political control. We just didn't know it. That is the case with so much

If an executive order can put grants under political control, they were already under political control. We just didn't know it. That is the case with so much of what is happening now. If these things are possible, the system was already broken.

mmustapic 1y ago
You can’t make an unbreakable system, or, at least, it’s very difficult. The problem is that a big percentage of the population is ok with this, and in that case it doesn’t matter if it’s illegal or not. There is a reason why, even if allowed, governments didn’t do these kind of things: population didn’t want it.
- BrenBarn 1y ago
  Unless that "big" percentage is an outright majority of the citizenry --- not a majority of congressional districts, not a majority of electoral college votes, not a majority of the votes in the last election, but an outright majority of the actual desires of all citizens --- then the system is broken. I'm pretty sure that is not the case; it's at least debatable. But the problem is that we've bought into a system that says that doesn't matter.
jjav 1y ago
In software terms, there has been a vulnerability in the constitution all along, it just had not been exploited until now. The three branches of government are supposed to be checks and balances against each other. But turns out two of the three don't have any actual power to enforce their mandates. This has worked as long as the three branches grudgingly respected each others role. But now that the executive branch simply decided to ignore the other two whenever convenient, turns out there is no recourse.
- threatofrain 1y ago
  The GOP has majority in the Supreme Court and in Congress. It's not like there's a conflict of power. There's no disagreement going on.
  - ethbr1 1y ago
    Indeed. Congress has tons of hard checks on executive power. (The Supreme Court, less so if it comes to enforcement and all norms are ignored) That a Republican Congress isn't checking a Republican President isn't evidence of a lack of checks and balances. And points to why the President is pushing so hard for Texas to gerrymander additional Republican seats into the House...
    - burnt-resistor 1y ago
      As it stands currently, it's important to disambiguate the nuance that the Senate currently has enormous power while the House has very little real power. In the current context, gerrymandering only serves to prevent impeachment at this point, but it could permit even more extreme executive-dictated, legislative rubber-stamping. In the long-term, it would stack the deck for partisan cheating. Perhaps an amendment is needed to insist on independent, non-partisan district map commissions for every state at the federal level. PS: I used to live in Greg Casar's ultra-salamander TX-35, but now it bypasses me down I-35 with an umbilical or tiny body from SATX to ATX. TX-15 ® an TX-28 (D) run through my ZIP Code now.
      - snovv_crash 1y ago
        IMO rather put a maximum circumference^2:area ratio so they just can't be too long and skinny.
        burnt-resistor 1y ago
        Perhaps every state should be divided by the same, open source, simple and fair algorithm that creates deterministic centroids of people of close to the same population to maximize political competition, not minimize it. This is something too important to be left to political hacks of some states but not others who seek to cheat at elections to favor incumbents.
    - BrenBarn 1y ago
      But this gerrymander would just be one more on top of hundreds of others. The fact that "congress" agrees with the president is just another symptom of the fact that the entire system is fundamentally nonresponsive to the will of the people.
- burnt-resistor 1y ago
  It was already known by some, but not specifically, publicly elucidated or characterized: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_Loophole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_Loophole Future people must endeavor to split up power even more, make more functions more independent and shielded from political manipulation, and prevent the rich from monopolizing and corrupting political office, government, mass media distribution, and journalism.
- BrenBarn 1y ago
  The idea of branches of government being checks and balances against one another was never a good idea. A major problem is that the constitution doesn't actually encode any requirement that government represent the interests of the people, and gradually we've moved to a system where we're told what we're supposed to support is "the constitution" rather than any actual principles. It's all about supporting certain arbitrary procedures and content-free mechanisms.
- sporkland 1y ago
  The founding fathers didn't see the corrupting influence of political parties on the separation of powers. It's covered quite well in this SMBC related comic: https://www.lawsandsausagescomic.com/comic/101 https://www.lawsandsausagescomic.com/comic/101
qcnguy 1y ago
If it's government funded it was indeed always under political control, just that some prior politicians chose to let it drift. Having politicians exercise more direct control over this type of spending is good and as it should be. The concept of people taking money via force from other citizens yet answering to nobody is dystopian. The sort of people who support this idea are often, it seems, those who suspect their ideas and plans are so deeply unpopular that people could not be easily persuaded to fund them directly.
- exasperaited 1y ago
  > If it's government funded it was indeed always under political control, just that some prior politicians chose to let it drift. Right, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is under executive control? Is it not the case that Congress usually decides, one way or another, where the money goes, and it's the executive's job to see it does?
  - qcnguy 1y ago
    Congress puts political appointees in charge of the executive branch specifically to ensure political control.
exasperaited 1y ago
All political systems, no matter how well-designed, function largely on the basis of norms. Norms are why the UK's political system is fundamentally stable; norms (like "loyal opposition") were what kept the US system stable. It is not possible to design a system that works when people don't act like they want it to. It has always been my impression from a distance that Americans believe the federal system was perfectly designed and is inherently robust, when in fact there have been concerns from day one about what would happen if it fell into the hands of a leader who didn't care for the law. And that's where you are now. But re: the executive orders, actually it is not clear that they can do this. As with many of Trump's EOs it may simply be illegal because -- newsflash -- Trump is a crook and he has no intention of following the law if it limits him. This is a man who tried a coup and who has broad immunity for anything he does that even looks like governance, so why would he let a little thing like the law trouble him? It didn't bother him when he exported people to El Salvador without due process. It doesn't bother him that his "emergency" tariffs almost certainly lack a legal basis. I don't think the good faith reasoning about the system being broken by design really matters: the USA is falling victim to an accelerated Hungary-style fascist restructuring. Nixon looks like a boy scout by comparison.

mmustapic 1y ago

You can’t make an unbreakable system, or, at least, it’s very difficult. The problem is that a big percentage of the population is ok with this, and in that case it doesn’t matter if it’s illegal or not. There is a reason why, even if allowed, governments didn’t do these kind of things: population didn’t want it.

BrenBarn 1y ago
Unless that "big" percentage is an outright majority of the citizenry --- not a majority of congressional districts, not a majority of electoral college votes, not a majority of the votes in the last election, but an outright majority of the actual desires of all citizens --- then the system is broken. I'm pretty sure that is not the case; it's at least debatable. But the problem is that we've bought into a system that says that doesn't matter.

jjav 1y ago

In software terms, there has been a vulnerability in the constitution all along, it just had not been exploited until now. The three branches of government are supposed to be checks and balances against each other. But turns out two of the three don't have any actual power to enforce their mandates. This has worked as long as the three branches grudgingly respected each others role. But now that the executive branch simply decided to ignore the other two whenever convenient, turns out there is no recourse.

threatofrain 1y ago
The GOP has majority in the Supreme Court and in Congress. It's not like there's a conflict of power. There's no disagreement going on.
- ethbr1 1y ago
  Indeed. Congress has tons of hard checks on executive power. (The Supreme Court, less so if it comes to enforcement and all norms are ignored) That a Republican Congress isn't checking a Republican President isn't evidence of a lack of checks and balances. And points to why the President is pushing so hard for Texas to gerrymander additional Republican seats into the House...
  - burnt-resistor 1y ago
    As it stands currently, it's important to disambiguate the nuance that the Senate currently has enormous power while the House has very little real power. In the current context, gerrymandering only serves to prevent impeachment at this point, but it could permit even more extreme executive-dictated, legislative rubber-stamping. In the long-term, it would stack the deck for partisan cheating. Perhaps an amendment is needed to insist on independent, non-partisan district map commissions for every state at the federal level. PS: I used to live in Greg Casar's ultra-salamander TX-35, but now it bypasses me down I-35 with an umbilical or tiny body from SATX to ATX. TX-15 ® an TX-28 (D) run through my ZIP Code now.
    - snovv_crash 1y ago
      IMO rather put a maximum circumference^2:area ratio so they just can't be too long and skinny.
      - burnt-resistor 1y ago
        Perhaps every state should be divided by the same, open source, simple and fair algorithm that creates deterministic centroids of people of close to the same population to maximize political competition, not minimize it. This is something too important to be left to political hacks of some states but not others who seek to cheat at elections to favor incumbents.
  - BrenBarn 1y ago
    But this gerrymander would just be one more on top of hundreds of others. The fact that "congress" agrees with the president is just another symptom of the fact that the entire system is fundamentally nonresponsive to the will of the people.
burnt-resistor 1y ago
It was already known by some, but not specifically, publicly elucidated or characterized: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_Loophole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_Loophole Future people must endeavor to split up power even more, make more functions more independent and shielded from political manipulation, and prevent the rich from monopolizing and corrupting political office, government, mass media distribution, and journalism.
BrenBarn 1y ago
The idea of branches of government being checks and balances against one another was never a good idea. A major problem is that the constitution doesn't actually encode any requirement that government represent the interests of the people, and gradually we've moved to a system where we're told what we're supposed to support is "the constitution" rather than any actual principles. It's all about supporting certain arbitrary procedures and content-free mechanisms.
sporkland 1y ago
The founding fathers didn't see the corrupting influence of political parties on the separation of powers. It's covered quite well in this SMBC related comic: https://www.lawsandsausagescomic.com/comic/101 https://www.lawsandsausagescomic.com/comic/101

qcnguy 1y ago

If it's government funded it was indeed always under political control, just that some prior politicians chose to let it drift. Having politicians exercise more direct control over this type of spending is good and as it should be. The concept of people taking money via force from other citizens yet answering to nobody is dystopian. The sort of people who support this idea are often, it seems, those who suspect their ideas and plans are so deeply unpopular that people could not be easily persuaded to fund them directly.

exasperaited 1y ago
> If it's government funded it was indeed always under political control, just that some prior politicians chose to let it drift. Right, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is under executive control? Is it not the case that Congress usually decides, one way or another, where the money goes, and it's the executive's job to see it does?
- qcnguy 1y ago
  Congress puts political appointees in charge of the executive branch specifically to ensure political control.

exasperaited 1y ago

All political systems, no matter how well-designed, function largely on the basis of norms. Norms are why the UK's political system is fundamentally stable; norms (like "loyal opposition") were what kept the US system stable. It is not possible to design a system that works when people don't act like they want it to. It has always been my impression from a distance that Americans believe the federal system was perfectly designed and is inherently robust, when in fact there have been concerns from day one about what would happen if it fell into the hands of a leader who didn't care for the law. And that's where you are now. But re: the executive orders, actually it is not clear that they can do this. As with many of Trump's EOs it may simply be illegal because -- newsflash -- Trump is a crook and he has no intention of following the law if it limits him. This is a man who tried a coup and who has broad immunity for anything he does that even looks like governance, so why would he let a little thing like the law trouble him? It didn't bother him when he exported people to El Salvador without due process. It doesn't bother him that his "emergency" tariffs almost certainly lack a legal basis. I don't think the good faith reasoning about the system being broken by design really matters: the USA is falling victim to an accelerated Hungary-style fascist restructuring. Nixon looks like a boy scout by comparison.