4 ms·

> With congress having abdicated Historically in the American Republic, this has been true more often than not. There's a reason something taking "an act of Co

by ethbr1 10mo ago

> With congress having abdicated Historically in the American Republic, this has been true more often than not. There's a reason something taking "an act of Congress" is not a new expression for difficulty.

ratamacue 10mo ago
"Act of Congress" has always implied "something that is hard", but it has also implied "something that is fairly definitive". Today, congress can be largely ignored by the executive and congress seems to support it vocally. Is this also something that has been true more often than not in the American Republic?
- ethbr1 10mo ago
  > Today, congress can be largely ignored by the executive and congress seems to support it vocally. I seem to remember the 116th and 118th Congresses pushing back against executive power, which were the last times the US had divided government. https://history.house.gov/Institution/Presidents-Coinciding/Party-Government/ https://history.house.gov/Institution/Presidents-Coinciding/... And I wouldn't exactly say that Congress is wholly supporting unrestricted presidential power currently either. E.g. Senator Thune continually shooting down Trump's more oddball pleas. There are very vocal supporters of the president in both the House and Senate GOP caucuses, but they're not the majority. I think the strongest version of your argument would be something like 'In recent US Congressional history, both parties when in power have used congressional power to tactically check opposition party presidents, but neither have sought to permanently expand and defend the bounds of congressional power.'
  - bborud 10mo ago
    Wouldn’t a functioning congress have resisted the executive aborbing its powers? After all, congress was supposed to be the most powerful branch. For good reason.
    - dmitrygr 10mo ago
      > congress was supposed to be the most powerful branch Just re-read the USA constitution. Despite much effort, I did not find any "power rankings" of the three branches. Please point me in the right direction.
      - boroboro4 10mo ago
        Obviously the one which sets the law, also the one which has first article dedicated to it.
      - komali2 10mo ago
        It was written before Dragonball Z existed so they didn't have the convenient framework of "power level" to use. Instead the power of Congress is indicated by the fact that all acts of the government are derived from bills originating in Congress, which the president rubber stamps (or not, which congress can then override), and the supreme court judicially interprets - but only if someone brings suit. Now the president can do police actions and stuff but it seems like the intention was congress being the branch that had independent autonomy to just do things and get the ball rolling.
      - 9991 10mo ago
        Congress sets the president's salary and has the power to fire him. The president has no such reverse power. The legislative branch is clearly the more powerful. "co-equal" is a fiction made up out of whole cloth by Nixon to further his criminal activities.
        mrkstu 10mo ago
        Until the party system existed, this was true. As soon as the party system evolved (pretty much immediately), with the President nominally the head of the party and the President has at least 1/3 of the Senate, the President comes near to immune from dismissal. At that point, combined with the recent Supreme Court decisions holding 'official acts' as non-prosecutable, has swung the power meter severely to the executive.
      - 10mo ago
bborud 10mo ago
There are degrees. I don’t think congress has been this weak before in our lifetime. And most people seeming not to care scares me. I have been looking at productivity numbers for congress over the past decades. And I don’t get why people aren’t furious over the current congress not doing their job.

by ethbr1 10mo ago

ratamacue 10mo ago

"Act of Congress" has always implied "something that is hard", but it has also implied "something that is fairly definitive". Today, congress can be largely ignored by the executive and congress seems to support it vocally. Is this also something that has been true more often than not in the American Republic?

ethbr1 10mo ago
> Today, congress can be largely ignored by the executive and congress seems to support it vocally. I seem to remember the 116th and 118th Congresses pushing back against executive power, which were the last times the US had divided government. https://history.house.gov/Institution/Presidents-Coinciding/Party-Government/ https://history.house.gov/Institution/Presidents-Coinciding/... And I wouldn't exactly say that Congress is wholly supporting unrestricted presidential power currently either. E.g. Senator Thune continually shooting down Trump's more oddball pleas. There are very vocal supporters of the president in both the House and Senate GOP caucuses, but they're not the majority. I think the strongest version of your argument would be something like 'In recent US Congressional history, both parties when in power have used congressional power to tactically check opposition party presidents, but neither have sought to permanently expand and defend the bounds of congressional power.'
- bborud 10mo ago
  Wouldn’t a functioning congress have resisted the executive aborbing its powers? After all, congress was supposed to be the most powerful branch. For good reason.
  - dmitrygr 10mo ago
    > congress was supposed to be the most powerful branch Just re-read the USA constitution. Despite much effort, I did not find any "power rankings" of the three branches. Please point me in the right direction.
    - boroboro4 10mo ago
      Obviously the one which sets the law, also the one which has first article dedicated to it.
    - komali2 10mo ago
      It was written before Dragonball Z existed so they didn't have the convenient framework of "power level" to use. Instead the power of Congress is indicated by the fact that all acts of the government are derived from bills originating in Congress, which the president rubber stamps (or not, which congress can then override), and the supreme court judicially interprets - but only if someone brings suit. Now the president can do police actions and stuff but it seems like the intention was congress being the branch that had independent autonomy to just do things and get the ball rolling.
    - 9991 10mo ago
      Congress sets the president's salary and has the power to fire him. The president has no such reverse power. The legislative branch is clearly the more powerful. "co-equal" is a fiction made up out of whole cloth by Nixon to further his criminal activities.
      - mrkstu 10mo ago
        Until the party system existed, this was true. As soon as the party system evolved (pretty much immediately), with the President nominally the head of the party and the President has at least 1/3 of the Senate, the President comes near to immune from dismissal. At that point, combined with the recent Supreme Court decisions holding 'official acts' as non-prosecutable, has swung the power meter severely to the executive.
    - 10mo ago

bborud 10mo ago

There are degrees. I don’t think congress has been this weak before in our lifetime. And most people seeming not to care scares me. I have been looking at productivity numbers for congress over the past decades. And I don’t get why people aren’t furious over the current congress not doing their job.