4 ms·

Yup. There were supposed to be 3 separate, contentious arms of the government: executive, legislative and judicial. The problem, and I honestly can't see a so

by jleyank 9mo ago

Yup. There were supposed to be 3 separate, contentious arms of the government: executive, legislative and judicial. The problem, and I honestly can't see a solution to it, is that the same party/group controls all three and nobody's willing to buck the trend. The "guardrails" are there, it merely turns out they're only weakly enforced.

whynotminot 9mo ago
I don’t know what the solution is, because a fourth branch of government also could be problematic. But it’s becoming a very obvious problem that the justice department is not separate from the executive.
- efitz 9mo ago
  The justice department IS part of the executive branch; it’s a department headed by a cabinet secretary.
  - whynotminot 9mo ago
    Yes? That’s what I said.
- andsoitis 9mo ago
  > But it’s becoming a very obvious problem that the justice department is not separate from the executive. The alternatives are probably worse. Every alternative trades political accountability for independence or vice versa. The alternatives are: An Independent Prosecutorial Branch (a “fourth branch”), OR Prosecutors as Part of the Judicial Branch, OR Congress-Controlled Prosecution, OR Fully Decentralized / Elected Federal Prosecutors. The US uses a hybrid model of executive control with strong counterweights rather than full independence. This model persists because it maintains democratic accountability, preserves adversarial courts, and allows checks without creating an unaccountable power center.
- tosapple 9mo ago
  How is that all not part of the judicial branch, e.g. the "courts" ?
  - adrian_b 9mo ago
    There are many countries where prosecutors belong to the judicial branch, together with judges. In USA however, they belong to the Department of Justice, which is a part of the government.
efitz 9mo ago
What do you mean no one is willing to buck the trend? It’s almost a certainty that Republicans will lose the house this year and maybe the senate. On the other hand we have federal district court judges in podunk deciding that they have the unilateral ability to stop the president from exercising executive authority. It wouldn’t be so comical if they didn’t ultimately lose in most cases; our judges are the real Constitutional crisis right now. I have not seen the Trump administration fail to obey a single court order; I just don’t see Trump as a crisis. His policies, you could make a good case. His rhetoric, yes. His official acts, not so much.
- ipython 9mo ago
  > It’s almost a certainty that Republicans will lose the house this year and maybe the senate. Unfortunately the state party operatives have started gerrymandering efforts to make this even more difficult. Trump has absolutely failed to comply with several court orders. The ones I’m aware of relate to Kilmar Garcia’s removal to CECOT.
  - efitz 9mo ago
    Where is Garcia now? In the US. Who brought him back? Trump
    - ipython 9mo ago
      So it’s ok he was sent to CECOT in violation of an order not to in the first place? The original question was whether Trump ignored court orders. Id say that removing someone against a court order to a third country is a pretty big issue. Even if a year later after a huge public pressure campaign he is temporarily back in the states. See https://marylandmatters.org/2026/01/16/whats-next-for-maryland-man-awaiting-a-decision-on-whether-he-can-stay-in-the-us/ https://marylandmatters.org/2026/01/16/whats-next-for-maryla...
      - mothballed 9mo ago
        He wasn't removed to a third country. He was removed to his home country, illegally, as he had a court order for deportation but per his own request he left open only deportation to a third country because he was granted his petition to bar deportation to El Salvador after his asylum claim failed. Had he had been shoved out of a C-130 and parachuted into South Sudan, we'd never even be hearing of the guy because that would have been allowed and been in compliance with the deportation order as well as the order blocking deportation to the one country they deported him to.
sheikhnbake 9mo ago
The trend has been bucked by the fascists currently in power.
anon291 9mo ago
Well... That's only part of the problem. The real problem is that Congress delegated all its responsibility to the executive and judicial branches. To the executive branch it gave the power to declare war (war power act), and to make new law (administrative law). Then it created a new branch, the federal reserve, to make monetary policy. To the judiciary it handed the power of checking the president. Now Congress does nothing as evidenced by how little actual legislation they've passed while Trump has just done everything via executive order. But this entire system developed while one party held all three branches but also while the branches were held by different parties. Since the house is up for election every two years, they have every incentive to delegate so they can wash their hands free of any decision.
- f30e3dfed1c9 9mo ago
  "To the executive branch it gave the power to declare war (war power act), and to make new law (administrative law). Then it created a new branch, the federal reserve, to make monetary policy." The War Powers Resolution of 1973, aka War Powers Act, does not give the executive power to declare war. On the contrary, it was intended to limit the executive's ability to engage in armed conflict. It says so right at the top: 50 U.S. Code § 1541 - Purpose and policy It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations. One could argue that it hasn't worked all that well, but it is, for example, why George W. Bush got Congress to pass the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 before invading Iraq. Also, "[t]hen it created a new branch, the federal reserve" is a sort of unusual way to describe something that happened 60 years earlier.
  - anon291 9mo ago
    Distinction without a difference on the war powers act
SlightlyLeftPad 9mo ago
Nobody wants to say it. Yes, the original dream of the U.S. is very clearly a failed experiment with both the legislative and judicial branches essentially extensions of the executive branch. The checks and balances that used to exist have almost completely disappeared. Whatever’s left of those branches are essentially extra entry points for lobbyists and billionaires to fully drive the knife deeper. It wasn’t actually designed that way but it has slowly manipulated and shaped into that way over a hundred years of stacked up law bloat built with the sole intention to make challenging it impossible for anyone who’s not crazy wealthy.
- johnnyanmac 9mo ago
  Well yes. It's easy to manipulate when you freeze the House for 100 years. That's the biggest reason we keep swinging so much. The House became a mini-senate, and the Senate structure is already something under contention (designed from the beginning to compromise with smaller population states). Now we have a Senate that can change every 2 years. 2 years is simply a bad golf swing for billionaires when they "lose". 2 years of suffering feels eternal for the working class The Legislature has the most power and the House freeze made it easy to co-opt. you make the house compliant or essentially useless, and you can't impeach anything in the executive nor judicial branches. Freeze the house and you can't really start any legislature to have laws catch up with rampant greed. Or make it easier to lobby into more greed. We desperately need to expand the house again. I remember saying we should have over 1000 reps with current growth. Maybe starting at 700-800 would be a good start.
  - specialist 9mo ago
    Yes and: The US House campaigns have steadily became more nationalized. Your proposal would reverse that. I believe, but cannot prove, localism would lead to parliamentary style coalitions (caucus).
johnnyanmac 9mo ago
well, it might be bucked. The problem is you can tear down a lot more in 2 years of reckless, lawless land than you can build in 20 years of gridlock. Even 5 years of unanimous cooperation may not be enough at this point to rebuild what's happened, and we're halfway to midterms. Legistlative will bend and sway as it's been doing for 30 years now. the judicial is the much more concerning branch. EVen if Trump was ousted tomorrow, we're still stuck with a conservative majority for a good 20 years or so without major intervention. The long shot is that Thomas and Alito get convicted. But we'd need huge momentum for that to gain ground, and even then Breyer may pass sooner or later. Adding to the courts would help, but not solve the underlying issue.

by jleyank 9mo ago

whynotminot 9mo ago

I don’t know what the solution is, because a fourth branch of government also could be problematic. But it’s becoming a very obvious problem that the justice department is not separate from the executive.

efitz 9mo ago
The justice department IS part of the executive branch; it’s a department headed by a cabinet secretary.
- whynotminot 9mo ago
  Yes? That’s what I said.
andsoitis 9mo ago
> But it’s becoming a very obvious problem that the justice department is not separate from the executive. The alternatives are probably worse. Every alternative trades political accountability for independence or vice versa. The alternatives are: An Independent Prosecutorial Branch (a “fourth branch”), OR Prosecutors as Part of the Judicial Branch, OR Congress-Controlled Prosecution, OR Fully Decentralized / Elected Federal Prosecutors. The US uses a hybrid model of executive control with strong counterweights rather than full independence. This model persists because it maintains democratic accountability, preserves adversarial courts, and allows checks without creating an unaccountable power center.
tosapple 9mo ago
How is that all not part of the judicial branch, e.g. the "courts" ?
- adrian_b 9mo ago
  There are many countries where prosecutors belong to the judicial branch, together with judges. In USA however, they belong to the Department of Justice, which is a part of the government.

efitz 9mo ago

What do you mean no one is willing to buck the trend? It’s almost a certainty that Republicans will lose the house this year and maybe the senate. On the other hand we have federal district court judges in podunk deciding that they have the unilateral ability to stop the president from exercising executive authority. It wouldn’t be so comical if they didn’t ultimately lose in most cases; our judges are the real Constitutional crisis right now. I have not seen the Trump administration fail to obey a single court order; I just don’t see Trump as a crisis. His policies, you could make a good case. His rhetoric, yes. His official acts, not so much.

ipython 9mo ago
> It’s almost a certainty that Republicans will lose the house this year and maybe the senate. Unfortunately the state party operatives have started gerrymandering efforts to make this even more difficult. Trump has absolutely failed to comply with several court orders. The ones I’m aware of relate to Kilmar Garcia’s removal to CECOT.
- efitz 9mo ago
  Where is Garcia now? In the US. Who brought him back? Trump
  - ipython 9mo ago
    So it’s ok he was sent to CECOT in violation of an order not to in the first place? The original question was whether Trump ignored court orders. Id say that removing someone against a court order to a third country is a pretty big issue. Even if a year later after a huge public pressure campaign he is temporarily back in the states. See https://marylandmatters.org/2026/01/16/whats-next-for-maryland-man-awaiting-a-decision-on-whether-he-can-stay-in-the-us/ https://marylandmatters.org/2026/01/16/whats-next-for-maryla...
    - mothballed 9mo ago
      He wasn't removed to a third country. He was removed to his home country, illegally, as he had a court order for deportation but per his own request he left open only deportation to a third country because he was granted his petition to bar deportation to El Salvador after his asylum claim failed. Had he had been shoved out of a C-130 and parachuted into South Sudan, we'd never even be hearing of the guy because that would have been allowed and been in compliance with the deportation order as well as the order blocking deportation to the one country they deported him to.

sheikhnbake 9mo ago

The trend has been bucked by the fascists currently in power.

anon291 9mo ago

Well... That's only part of the problem. The real problem is that Congress delegated all its responsibility to the executive and judicial branches. To the executive branch it gave the power to declare war (war power act), and to make new law (administrative law). Then it created a new branch, the federal reserve, to make monetary policy. To the judiciary it handed the power of checking the president. Now Congress does nothing as evidenced by how little actual legislation they've passed while Trump has just done everything via executive order. But this entire system developed while one party held all three branches but also while the branches were held by different parties. Since the house is up for election every two years, they have every incentive to delegate so they can wash their hands free of any decision.

f30e3dfed1c9 9mo ago
"To the executive branch it gave the power to declare war (war power act), and to make new law (administrative law). Then it created a new branch, the federal reserve, to make monetary policy." The War Powers Resolution of 1973, aka War Powers Act, does not give the executive power to declare war. On the contrary, it was intended to limit the executive's ability to engage in armed conflict. It says so right at the top: 50 U.S. Code § 1541 - Purpose and policy It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations. One could argue that it hasn't worked all that well, but it is, for example, why George W. Bush got Congress to pass the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 before invading Iraq. Also, "[t]hen it created a new branch, the federal reserve" is a sort of unusual way to describe something that happened 60 years earlier.
- anon291 9mo ago
  Distinction without a difference on the war powers act

SlightlyLeftPad 9mo ago

Nobody wants to say it. Yes, the original dream of the U.S. is very clearly a failed experiment with both the legislative and judicial branches essentially extensions of the executive branch. The checks and balances that used to exist have almost completely disappeared. Whatever’s left of those branches are essentially extra entry points for lobbyists and billionaires to fully drive the knife deeper. It wasn’t actually designed that way but it has slowly manipulated and shaped into that way over a hundred years of stacked up law bloat built with the sole intention to make challenging it impossible for anyone who’s not crazy wealthy.

johnnyanmac 9mo ago
Well yes. It's easy to manipulate when you freeze the House for 100 years. That's the biggest reason we keep swinging so much. The House became a mini-senate, and the Senate structure is already something under contention (designed from the beginning to compromise with smaller population states). Now we have a Senate that can change every 2 years. 2 years is simply a bad golf swing for billionaires when they "lose". 2 years of suffering feels eternal for the working class The Legislature has the most power and the House freeze made it easy to co-opt. you make the house compliant or essentially useless, and you can't impeach anything in the executive nor judicial branches. Freeze the house and you can't really start any legislature to have laws catch up with rampant greed. Or make it easier to lobby into more greed. We desperately need to expand the house again. I remember saying we should have over 1000 reps with current growth. Maybe starting at 700-800 would be a good start.
- specialist 9mo ago
  Yes and: The US House campaigns have steadily became more nationalized. Your proposal would reverse that. I believe, but cannot prove, localism would lead to parliamentary style coalitions (caucus).

johnnyanmac 9mo ago

well, it might be bucked. The problem is you can tear down a lot more in 2 years of reckless, lawless land than you can build in 20 years of gridlock. Even 5 years of unanimous cooperation may not be enough at this point to rebuild what's happened, and we're halfway to midterms. Legistlative will bend and sway as it's been doing for 30 years now. the judicial is the much more concerning branch. EVen if Trump was ousted tomorrow, we're still stuck with a conservative majority for a good 20 years or so without major intervention. The long shot is that Thomas and Alito get convicted. But we'd need huge momentum for that to gain ground, and even then Breyer may pass sooner or later. Adding to the courts would help, but not solve the underlying issue.