Executive Power

[Agema]

So, I read about Trump's interview with Chris Wallace, and one of the things I read that struck me was Trump saying he was going to sign a new healthcare law in the next few weeks. My first thought was wondering what on earth he was going on about - there's no way a law could go through Congress in that time. Then I read this article:

Trump consults Bush torture lawyer on how to skirt law and rule by decree

John Yoo wrote memo used to justify waterboarding and other forms of torture, with Trump keen to use executive orders and circumvent Congress

www.theguardian.com

And suddenly it all became a bit clearer.

Yoo, who wrote the government defence of torture in the GWB years, believes this is the sort of power the Founding Fathers intended the president to have. In essence, executive orders with exceptionally wide ability to overrule other sources of governance, both the states and as far as I can tell Congress. Part of the rationale is that, via the SCOTUS ruling on Daca, precedent now exists for the president to exercise wide-ranging powers that previously were deemed beyond the executive. Furthermore, even if challenged, these "laws" could remain effective for years.

This seems to me to potentially going to be one of the most dramatic expansions of executive power seen in a l-o-n-g time if carried out. I am not at all convinced it's an improvement.

Another source:

Trump eyes Supreme Court ruling on DACA as license to skirt the law

Lawyer John Yoo believes the ruling paves the way for Trump to implement policies that Congress won't.

www.axios.com

 

[Worgen]

This just kinda goes into why its so important to get trump the fuck out of the white house. Right now the constitution is pretty much the final word with law, if congress passes something that is declared unconstitutional then that thing is just kinda gone. If hes not out then Ginsburg probably won't make it another term and he will get a 3rd and maybe 4th supreme court pick. So far his picks have ended up not being that bad, not good but at least not as bad as it was feared. However, if he can stack the courts more then he can almost ignore congress totally and just do what he wants. At least until we do another impeachment and he would need to go pretty far over the line to get republicans to go against him which means democrats would need to take the senate, actually them taking the senate would prevent a lot of the shit hes trying to pull in general.

 

[Revnak]

So, a thought. How many states swing red if their urban centers are under martial law and nobody can get outside to vote? I think there’s an obvious scheme to all this, in either preventing an election or winning it through brute force and intimidation. We are in a Weimar Republic speedrun.

 

[Agema]

So, a thought. How many states swing red if their urban centers are under martial law and nobody can get outside to vote? I think there’s an obvious scheme to all this, in either preventing an election or winning it through brute force and intimidation. We are in a Weimar Republic speedrun.

Let's not go off-topic that quickly after thread creation.

There are concerns about bureaucratic electoral interference or dubious legal decisions to constrain vote counting, but better to start a new thread.

 

[Revnak]

Let's not go off-topic that quickly after thread creation.

There are concerns about bureaucratic electoral interference or dubious legal decisions to constrain vote counting, but better to start a new thread.

I suppose so, but the combination of an extreme interpretation of executive authority with a brutal attempt to maintain his presidency is kinda how we would end up at America’s dead end.

 

[Agema]

I suppose so, but the combination of an extreme interpretation of executive authority with a brutal attempt to maintain his presidency is kinda how we would end up at America’s dead end.

I'd like to leave Trump tangential. He might be the originator of this idea and it might stem from his authoritarian instincts, but more fundamental is that - if attempted and even partially successful - it's potentially a massive game changer in US politics that will resonate for years, even decades. Other presidents will end using it because politicians tend to be pragmatic and opportunist, and eventually it will become normalised.

 

[stroopwafel]

I find it kinda funny how this blind faith in the institutions can lead to someone like Trump ruling per decrete as somehow acting within the spirit of the Founding Fathers. Instead of what core democratic values are beyond negotiation the question is always how much can we stretch the interpretation and intent of a constitution written hundreds of years ago. It's like fewer and fewer people actually believe in those values and now only exist because a certain document is beyond reproach. It's something that seems deeply embedded in American political culture. The separation of powers has been one of the most important lessons of the French Revolution in any democratic society post-Restoration so if it's tenets are now eroding that is indeed deeply concerning.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I find it kinda funny how this blind faith in the institutions can lead to someone like Trump ruling per decrete as somehow acting within the spirit of the Founding Fathers. Instead of what core democratic values are beyond negotiation the question is always how much can we stretch the interpretation and intent of a constitution written hundreds of years ago. It's like fewer and fewer people actually believe in those values and now only exist because a certain document is beyond reproach. It's something that seems deeply embedded in American political culture. The separation of powers has been one of the most important lessons of the French Revolution in any democratic society post-Restoration so if it's tenets are now eroding that is indeed deeply concerning.

The existing order has kept relatively stable an unjust society that is both slow to address injustice and keen to create a politics in which any move toward equality becomes a grievance to be avenged for a substantial share of the population. It is only natural that it comes apart eventually. The ruling class will of course turn to authoritarianism if they feel it necessary to maintain their hold on power-- they've already done so, with corpses to attest-- and authoritarian maneuvers will thus be justified against them.

 

[Agema]

I find it kinda funny how this blind faith in the institutions can lead to someone like Trump ruling per decrete as somehow acting within the spirit of the Founding Fathers. Instead of what core democratic values are beyond negotiation the question is always how much can we stretch the interpretation and intent of a constitution written hundreds of years ago. It's like fewer and fewer people actually believe in those values and now only exist because a certain document is beyond reproach. It's something that seems deeply embedded in American political culture. The separation of powers has been one of the most important lessons of the French Revolution in any democratic society post-Restoration so if it's tenets are now eroding that is indeed deeply concerning.

I think the US Constitution is a bit like the Bible. It's a guiding document that people put a lot of faith in, but which contains a lot of ambiguous content readers tend to interpret in ways most useful to their current needs and desires.

My reading of the John Yoo logic is that, ultimately, SCOTUS is likely to strike many or most of these decrees down so that technically the letter of law is carried out - it's just it'll take time to get to a SCOTUS ruling and the policy may even be allowed to run for a limited time later to ensure time for adjustment to closure. Therefore, in practical terms, the policy will last years. Implicitly, by my reasoning, is to also consider what happens if SCOTUS strikes a law down. It seems to me, just have a new replacement decree ready to go the day it does. Sure, the courts can strike that down eventually as well, but it'll be like very slow-paced whack-a-mole. There are of course other limits, that the president will struggle to do anything that requires an additional budget, because he can't tax by presidential decree.

 

[stroopwafel]

I think the US Constitution is a bit like the Bible. It's a guiding document that people put a lot of faith in, but which contains a lot of ambiguous content readers tend to interpret in ways most useful to their current needs and desires.

My reading of the John Yoo logic is that, ultimately, SCOTUS is likely to strike many or most of these decrees down so that technically the letter of law is carried out - it's just it'll take time to get to a SCOTUS ruling and the policy may even be allowed to run for a limited time later to ensure time for adjustment to closure. Therefore, in practical terms, the policy will last years. Implicitly, by my reasoning, is to also consider what happens if SCOTUS strikes a law down. It seems to me, just have a new replacement decree ready to go the day it does. Sure, the courts can strike that down eventually as well, but it'll be like very slow-paced whack-a-mole. There are of course other limits, that the president will struggle to do anything that requires an additional budget, because he can't tax by presidential decree.

Yeah, but it seems you would create this very cyclical legislation where one president's decisions are immediately overturned by the next if they are of a different denomination. Without congressional support these decrees would majorly hinder continuity of government. Maybe the U.S. has indeed become so polarized that this is inevatible but the only thing this will lead to is stagnation. Just look at Obama's universal healthcare. Eight years of work for nothing. The escalation in Iran due to the one-sided termination of the nuclear treaty and the concurrent damage to international relations and destabilization in Iran and the region. Similarly all that work for nothing with some very real strategic implications.

I think it's always been the one flaw in democratic societies that weak leaders like Trump get chosen that do a lot of damage. But I guess that is the price to pay to not have the alternative.

 

[ObsidianJones]

The problem with democracy is it's the only form of Government that can vote in its total destruction.

The concept of democracy can only truly work for the benefit of society is if those in said society are truly interested in mutual benefit of all. Sadly, humans are intrinsically selfish. Resources for others means less resources for the individual, in most people's minds. Then slap in the idea of capitalism and even if Trump is voted out in November... it will not be the last that you'll see if someone like him. Left or Right.

 

[dreng3]

The problem with democracy is it's the only form of Government that can vote in its total destruction.

The concept of democracy can only truly work for the benefit of society is if those in said society are truly interested in mutual benefit of all. Sadly, humans are intrinsically selfish. Resources for others means less resources for the individual, in most people's minds. Then slap in the idea of capitalism and even if Trump is voted out in November... it will not be the last that you'll see if someone like him. Left or Right.

Plato pretty aptly predicted that almost every form of governance would suffer a form of decay and devolve into the form that was a rung lower on the scale of bad forms of government.
Then again, not a whole lot of way down since he ranks democracy as second to worst, only slightly better than tyranny and behind both aristocracy, timocracy, and oligarchy.

 

[Eacaraxe]

...The separation of powers has been one of the most important lessons of the French Revolution in any democratic society post-Restoration so if it's tenets are now eroding that is indeed deeply concerning.

You think that's bad, wait until you see what's happened inside executive agencies since Reagan, and more often than not with SCOTUS's blessing regardless of the courts' makeup.

 

[Trunkage]

How Liberation of you guys... They're usually very worried about EO and the executive branch draining to much power from the others.

That being said, Libertarians were very angry at Obama for his EO's, but also weren't very happy with Bush on these grounds. But the number of EO's under Trump has skyrocketed.

You think that's bad, wait until you see what's happened inside executive agencies since Reagan, and more often than not with SCOTUS's blessing regardless of the courts' makeup.

Are you talking about agencies designed to fail? So the executive can pretend it tried something but failed? Or Reagan's extra-curricular activity outside the borders? Or clear privacy violations like PRISM? Stacking the bureaus?

 

[Eacaraxe]

Are you talking about agencies designed to fail? So the executive can pretend it tried something but failed? Or Reagan's extra-curricular activity outside the borders? Or clear privacy violations like PRISM? Stacking the bureaus?

Corporate capture, the revolving door, the circumvention of delegated authority by changing regulatory schema absent Congressional approval, and in reality little remedial power on Congresses' part. Most notably within the EPA, FEC, SEC, FCC, ICE, USCIS, and CBP.

The three SCOTUS cases most relevant to it being Chevron (executive agencies hold final authority on how to interpret statute), Mistretta (agencies to which powers have been delegated under specific and limited conditions can make de facto changes to law), and Chadha (Congress has limited to zero oversight over agencies absent repealing the laws by which power has been delegated).

 

[Trunkage]

Corporate capture, the revolving door, the circumvention of delegated authority by changing regulatory schema absent Congressional approval, and in reality little remedial power on Congresses' part. Most notably within the EPA, FEC, SEC, FCC, ICE, USCIS, and CBP.

The three SCOTUS cases most relevant to it being Chevron (executive agencies hold final authority on how to interpret statute), Mistretta (agencies to which powers have been delegated under specific and limited conditions can make de facto changes to law), and Chadha (Congress has limited to zero oversight over agencies absent repealing the laws by which power has been delegated).

Jesus, how could I forget about that

 

[Eacaraxe]

Jesus, how could I forget about that

Because you're intended to. Not many news outlets watchdog alphabet agencies, indie or mainstream though the former do more often than the latter, and alphabet agencies don't make headlines unless it's a major news item directly relevant to a major political issue or controversy. Trump tweets are more important news.