4 ms·

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

by 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.
- BrenBarn 1y ago
  Those are all consequences of the same brokenness. All of the institutions are fundamentally broken.
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

by jjav 1y ago

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.
BrenBarn 1y ago
Those are all consequences of the same brokenness. All of the institutions are fundamentally broken.

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