Comment by nathanaldensr
1 year ago
This has nothing to do with "democracy" in any way. This is the equivalent of a CEO publishing a memo telling employees how to interpret things that happen outside of the company (e.g., new laws, social trends, etc.) It's the CEO's job to align their workforce to have the same interpretation of information. Federal judges can still rule on issues brought before them but the judges have to provide Constitutional- or precedent-related rulings.
Why are Americans acting so surprised that the President has this authority? That is his job, as it was for all presidents before him. This executive order is saying that the "employees under the CEO" do not have the authority to usurp the "CEO's" interpretations of law. Checks and balances still apply, of course; Congress can intervene if the President is acting in ways that Congress doesn't like. That's what impeachment is for--and impeachment is a process regardless of whether the President is issuing "illegal" executive orders or doing something else like what Nixon did.
The process works; blame Congress for not holding the President accountable in the ways outlined by the Constitution.
I have a puzzle for you:
Let's say we have a democracy where the only rule is highest vote wins. Let's say 51% of the people vote to enslave/oppress the other 49%.
Maybe they vote for literal chattel slavery. Maybe they vote for healthcare for themselves but not the others. Maybe they vote to tax the others at the maximum possible or implement tax policies that dis-proportionally affect the 49%. Maybe they vote the 49% cannot own homes and therefore must pay rent to a landlord. Maybe they vote that the 49% must register for the draft, but not them. Maybe they vote that the 49% aren't eligible for public school while they are. Maybe they vote that the 49% is not able to own stock or register for a company. Let's pretend those are legal, it is definitely possible. Slavery at one point was constitutionally allowed.
Is that a Democracy? A Liberal Democracy? A Democratic Republic? A Constitutional Democratic Republic if the law were enshrined on paper?
Would you want to live in that country? Would you want to live in that country if you were in the 49%?
What is the key ingredient that makes something a "Democracy" rather than tyranny of the majority, "mob rule," or "might makes right"?
Well, it is a democracy, the key being that the majority of people voted for some law. Whether you'd want to live in the country is a different story. Sometimes, democracies are not always the best form of government, they are as susceptible to systemic issues as any other form of government.
So you do not understand what a democracy is and how it works.
Balance of the three branches of government and the rule of law and protection of minorities are the complementary requirements to the majority vote, to qualify for a democracy.
9 replies →
That sounds like Ancient Greek democracy except the gap was much larger than 51-49.
[dead]
If you ignore all context, their support of the unitary executive (anti-american) theory, and the recent comments that "if a president does it, it isn't breaking the law" and "going against the will of the president is going against the will of the people"...
If you ignore ALL of that then you have a talking point worth debating.
Because people in independent agencies are by act protected from exactly these things. Think for a bit, why were they not just called "agencies"?
And for all the stupidity of congress, if the fail to protect against a self-coup, that doesn't make it any less likely.
[flagged]
I've been seeing posts like this all over hacker news. They appear to be structured like rational arguments but really make no logical sense.
I have no doubt that these people know exactly what they are doing, and are intentionally lying and spreading these "very reasonable" arguments as a blueprint for others to copy.
Their goal is to fluster and confuse the situation.
It may be the case. I also genuinely think some people are not paying attention and think in a vacuum. They fail to see the malice and the words and writings from these people wanting to destroy the function of the government.
But hey, the president is like a CEO, right?
3 replies →
[flagged]
> The operative portion I see is as follows: “The President and the Attorney General [...] shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch" [...] This doesn’t touch the judicial branch in any way.
What? Trump has just asserted that the Judicial Branch's interpretation of federal law--almost its entire job under our US Constitution, and widely understood to include laws authorizing and controlling how government programs work--is entirely void in places where it's mattered for generations.
The correct response to that is: "That's an unprecedented assertion contrary to established principle, and arguably unconstitutional."
Not: "Gee golly willickers, I just can't see why you're all overreacting, it's not like the justices have to obey his interpretation of the law when they do things every day, so it's all fair-n-square!"
> [I]t seems clear to me that the prevailing narrative is both consistent and being constructed in bad faith.
The bad-faith here is your willful blindness, where you construct textual apologetics by dismissing the consequences of what's being said. (Compare: "He only said Big Mickey should wear concrete overshoes and sleep with the fishes, you people are all making bad-faith arguments against someone just trying to give honest lifestyle advice!")
1 reply →
>"but the central point I’m trying to make here isn’t simple whataboutism"
Next sentence:
>"I want to point out that everything that the Left is breathlessly calling fascism has immediate and direct corollaries even in the most recent Democrat administration"
Could have fooled me.
As for your statement; no, you're wrong. Everything was (D)ifferent last admin, Biden didn't go for gutting the SEC's independence when they went for his billionaire right-hand man that's going around gutting other agencies with unchecked power.