6 ms·

If they decide to settle, even if for a much smaller amount, its a big L for the UC system and the nation. The past Universities were much smaller, but the UC s

If they decide to settle, even if for a much smaller amount, its a big L for the UC system and the nation. The past Universities were much smaller, but the UC system is a beast. They must fight this or we are really going down the road of a politicized and neutered academia (like in Russia). This along with the recent Executive Order claiming to be able to require a political appointee to approve every research grant, we are going down the wrong road. I am constantly thinking about this modern misunderstanding of what the framers of the Constitution meant by "Executive Power" is simple "to execute the law". "Article II Vests Executive Power, Not the Royal Prerogative" [1][2] is critical and needs to be set front stage. [1] https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles/2062/ https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles/2062/ [2]https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-meaning-of-article-ii-and-%27executive-power%27-to-trump https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-meaning-of-article-...

homeonthemtn 1y ago
Blame Congress. There are 3 branches of power meant to keep the others in check. That's not happened in...20, 30 years now?
- jonnycomputer 1y ago
  Why not both?
- SubiculumCode 1y ago
  Yes. But there are systemic reasons that this has become the case. 1. For the house, since 1932 or so, the number of House Representatives has been fixed, meaning what used to be 30-50k citizens per representative, is quickly approaching 1M citizens:1 ratio. Instead of knocking on your neighbor's doors, you need to beg for money to run an expensive campaign. 2. Starting with Radio and TV and into hyperdrive with the internet, national political figures like the President can command a huge amount of political donations to be under their own control. That money can and is used to threaten House Representatives with getting primaried by the President, see 1. above. 3. As the law article I posted in the parent comment above thoroughly and convincingly investigated, the meaning of Executive Powers has changed from "Congress tells me what to do, and I do it" to I am a mini-king. Presidents have been able to push this growth as well, because see 2, then see 1.
  - Amezarak 1y ago
    Why would you suppose that a larger House would help keep the Executive in check? It seems more likely that the effect would be to dilute any individual House member's power and strengthen the party system. > the meaning of Executive Powers has changed from "Congress tells me what to do, and I do it" to I am a mini-king. I don't think John Adams, Lincoln, or FDR held anything close to the view that "Congress tells me what to do, and I do it."
    - SubiculumCode 1y ago
      The dynamics of a House whose member's districts are small enough (30,000) to not require a lot of money to run a campaign (just knock on doors and put up signs) compared to the current situation that makes them spend almost all their time begging for money and avoiding being the target of other people's money? That is fairly straightforward. They can buck the President and the Party, because they don't need their money for their constituents to know them. >I don't think John Adams, Lincoln, or FDR held anything close to the view that "Congress tells me what to do, and I do it." I provided a comprehensive and convincing document arguing that such an understanding did in fact exist in the late 1700's and the 1800's, specifically in terms of the meaning of "Executive Power" in Article II. My loose phrasing should not be where an argument should be hung. Let me take a bit more time. The 18th-century evidence reviewed in this law article pretty clearly shows that "executive power" just meant the power to execute laws. This didn't appear to be in contention; from radical Whigs to hardcore royalists agreed on this basic definition. Some specific evidence: Blackstone's Commentaries, which Madison called "the book which is in every man's hand," flat-out defined executive power as "the right of enforcing the laws." That's it. Blackstone carefully listed over thirty different royal prerogatives—war powers, foreign affairs, pardons, AND executive power. Just one item on that long list, not some umbrella term for everything. Every single Founding-era dictionary backs this up. They all defined "executive" as having pwer to act or carry laws into execution. Not one included foreign affairs or war powers. When they specifically defined "executive power" as a legal term---it was always about implementing laws or putting plans into execution. Even Ryalists e.g Robert Filmer agreed with this narrow definition, dismissed mere executive power as beneath a true monarch (!!) calling it just "a power of putting laws in execution by judging and punishing offenders." The actual term for the Crown's broader powers was "the royal prerogative," not "executive power." Everyone understood that executive power was inherently subordinate to legislative power—it was an empty vessel that could only execute what the legislature authorized. So the argument goes that the modern Vesting Clause Thesis basically makes a linguistic mistake. Sure, people called the king "the executive" because he had the executive power, but that doesn't mean all his other powers were therefore "executive."
- Teever 1y ago
  No, the blame for this lies squarely with the American people. This is their circus and their mess. Non-Americans don't care about the buck passing. At the end of the day this is all the responsibility of America as a whole and the people who live there.

homeonthemtn 1y ago

Blame Congress. There are 3 branches of power meant to keep the others in check. That's not happened in...20, 30 years now?

jonnycomputer 1y ago
Why not both?
SubiculumCode 1y ago
Yes. But there are systemic reasons that this has become the case. 1. For the house, since 1932 or so, the number of House Representatives has been fixed, meaning what used to be 30-50k citizens per representative, is quickly approaching 1M citizens:1 ratio. Instead of knocking on your neighbor's doors, you need to beg for money to run an expensive campaign. 2. Starting with Radio and TV and into hyperdrive with the internet, national political figures like the President can command a huge amount of political donations to be under their own control. That money can and is used to threaten House Representatives with getting primaried by the President, see 1. above. 3. As the law article I posted in the parent comment above thoroughly and convincingly investigated, the meaning of Executive Powers has changed from "Congress tells me what to do, and I do it" to I am a mini-king. Presidents have been able to push this growth as well, because see 2, then see 1.
- Amezarak 1y ago
  Why would you suppose that a larger House would help keep the Executive in check? It seems more likely that the effect would be to dilute any individual House member's power and strengthen the party system. > the meaning of Executive Powers has changed from "Congress tells me what to do, and I do it" to I am a mini-king. I don't think John Adams, Lincoln, or FDR held anything close to the view that "Congress tells me what to do, and I do it."
  - SubiculumCode 1y ago
    The dynamics of a House whose member's districts are small enough (30,000) to not require a lot of money to run a campaign (just knock on doors and put up signs) compared to the current situation that makes them spend almost all their time begging for money and avoiding being the target of other people's money? That is fairly straightforward. They can buck the President and the Party, because they don't need their money for their constituents to know them. >I don't think John Adams, Lincoln, or FDR held anything close to the view that "Congress tells me what to do, and I do it." I provided a comprehensive and convincing document arguing that such an understanding did in fact exist in the late 1700's and the 1800's, specifically in terms of the meaning of "Executive Power" in Article II. My loose phrasing should not be where an argument should be hung. Let me take a bit more time. The 18th-century evidence reviewed in this law article pretty clearly shows that "executive power" just meant the power to execute laws. This didn't appear to be in contention; from radical Whigs to hardcore royalists agreed on this basic definition. Some specific evidence: Blackstone's Commentaries, which Madison called "the book which is in every man's hand," flat-out defined executive power as "the right of enforcing the laws." That's it. Blackstone carefully listed over thirty different royal prerogatives—war powers, foreign affairs, pardons, AND executive power. Just one item on that long list, not some umbrella term for everything. Every single Founding-era dictionary backs this up. They all defined "executive" as having pwer to act or carry laws into execution. Not one included foreign affairs or war powers. When they specifically defined "executive power" as a legal term---it was always about implementing laws or putting plans into execution. Even Ryalists e.g Robert Filmer agreed with this narrow definition, dismissed mere executive power as beneath a true monarch (!!) calling it just "a power of putting laws in execution by judging and punishing offenders." The actual term for the Crown's broader powers was "the royal prerogative," not "executive power." Everyone understood that executive power was inherently subordinate to legislative power—it was an empty vessel that could only execute what the legislature authorized. So the argument goes that the modern Vesting Clause Thesis basically makes a linguistic mistake. Sure, people called the king "the executive" because he had the executive power, but that doesn't mean all his other powers were therefore "executive."
Teever 1y ago
No, the blame for this lies squarely with the American people. This is their circus and their mess. Non-Americans don't care about the buck passing. At the end of the day this is all the responsibility of America as a whole and the people who live there.