I know this sounds corny, but people are the recourse. We are part of the checks and balances.
Whether it is as overt as a soldier refusing to follow an illegal order knowing they are risking court marshal, or as clandestine as mid-level bureaucrat slow-walking damaging policies, or people actually voting in local-to-national elections.
I completely agree, which is why I’m very pessimistic about the outlook. I have no faith that the American public is up to the task. It will demand too much discomfort, and sacrifice, while the alternative will ask only that they do nothing.
Only recently has it become placid in the US. I expect social media also removes the desires to actually march or do something even louder. If Biden was this busy we'd be hearing a lot more "2nd Amendment!" talk.
> I know this sounds corny, but people are the recourse. We are part of the checks and balances.
By "we" here, it seems you mean bureaucrats. But what if your opinions, as an individual, unelected bureaucrat are bad? I don't care what a mid-level bureaucrat's opinions on what policies are damaging is. He could be a neo-nazi for all I know. Constitutionally, we should go with the opinions of the people who won an election, instead of some random dude. I was taught that was what "democracy" was, not some random person taking advantage of their position to advance their personal goals.
When the guy paid to guard the door starts making his own decisions about who should get to come in, it's not good. It's corruption.
> But what if your opinions, as an individual, unelected bureaucrat are bad?
That’s a slightly silly stance to take. Modern developed countries live and die by the quality of their bureaucracy. Making every bureaucratic role an elected position would be insane.
How on earth would you organise elections for every single DMV employee? Or every single park ranger? Or every single government accountant or secretary? Every single civil servant involved in collecting the data used to drive policy decisions.
To get rid of “unelected bureaucrats” you would basically have to turn every federal role into an elected role. The federal government employees around 3 million people, even if we say that only 10% of them are “real unelected bureaucrats”, that’s still 300,000 elections you would need to hold every X number of years. How on earth would anyone ever manage any of that?
Thats before we get to the insanity which is Musk, the epitome of the “unelected bureaucrat” who seems to be the one leading the charge on many of these “policy decisions”, and publicly lambasting “unelected bureaucrats” as being corrupt and “undemocratic”.
I read that as an all-inclusive "we" and not so narrow as "bureaucrats". The examples given are not exhaustive, if you have an imsgination.
There are many ways to fight for what you believe in. Look up mutual aid, participatory democracy, and the histories of women's suffrage and the fight in the USA for equal rights for Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color (that fight is nowhere near over).
Start with loving yourself, extent that to others, and if you feel like you're teetering, lean on others and find your balance again.
If I'm the guy guarding the door (and I have been), I damn well make my own decisions to the best of my ability, to where I would be willing to explain the what and why of my actions.
Which unelected bureaucrats do you consider to have the power and leeway to make policy according to their personal goals, such that making them follow the President rather than the courts' interpretation of the law is the better option?
… oh boy, if you think that mid level bureaucrat might be a neo-nazi I might have some bad news for you about the highest level bureaucrats currently running your country..
You’re right. But if the guy paid to guard the door is told to start letting gangsters in by management, whistleblowing and civil disobedience become championed by the public rather than condemned, that’s “the people’s” check and balance to power. I don’t think we should legally protect the guard’s right to disobey orders, but we MUST protect the guard’s right to protest publicly.
Ask yourself: what's the difference between the SEC saying, "We declare that Facebook broke a securities law and shall now be fined $1M" and Trump saying, "I decree that the SEC declare that Facebook broke a securities law and shall now be fined $1M"? Either of those could be true or false. Either could be politically motivated. Either could hold up in court or be struck down. So what's the difference?
One[0] answer is, the former was vetted by someone knowledgeable and (at least allegedly) non-partisan who had the power to stop it if it was wrong. That's it. If the president really wants to fine Facebook he can - he can replace the SEC Director with the "My Pillow" guy if he wants, who can replace SEC employees with randomly chosen members MAGA types until the desired fine is eventually issued - but at least going through the bureaucracy confers the possibility of impartial and informed oversight. Vesting the power with the president directly doesn't do that; presidents are biased and partisan by design.
0: Another answer is the SEC has been granted the power to do that by Congress and the president has not; but I get that people on the "unitary executive" train disregard this, and
A majority of Americans voted for Trump. There was a pollster who was on CNN a day or two ago who looked into people who voted for Clinton and Biden in 2016 and 2020, but then for Trump in 2024. These people were (of course generally speaking) happy with Trump's performace so far this term. There frustration with the Democrats was what they perceived as a lack of action, and they see Trump as "moving fast".
It's clear the American people (again, majority speaking - I mean, I certainly care) don't care about what is going on with the federal government right now. The only thing that will make them care is if the economy tanks or if inflation spirals out of control.
Congress has all the enforcement power, they can impeach the president whenever they want. Will they? I don't know, he's already gone so far in constitutional overreach that he's making Nixon blush.
Judiciary has more power than you'd think too. It's just that they try to act in good faith and generally do not want to throw people into civil contempt that often. The SCOTUS can even re-re-interpret the presidential immunity that Trump has abused to a pulp if they are angry enough. That was their call after all.
Will they do this? Highly unlikely, at least for Trump. I wouldn't be surprised if Musk flies too close to the sun, however.
> Congress has all the enforcement power, they can impeach the president whenever they want.
<Sad clown laughing noises>
Regarding the power of the judiciary in this, Trump's team is arguing right now before the Supreme Court that the judiciary has no power to constrain the President's power when he's acting solely within the Executive branch (which is basically all the time...) Oh, and as part of that filing he reminded the Supreme Court that they just granted him full immunity from prosecution.
For the cherry on the cake, the official Whitehouse X account tweeted out "GOD SAVE THE KING" with a picture of Trump with a crown on his head (I thought this was fake when I first saw it).
Okay, that's not even the craziest argument the judiciary has gotten. They'll just smash it down like everything else. If he ignores that, the court can escalate. Which is unprecedented for such office, but well in their powers. They can easily reinterpret presidential immunity as well in light of this entire month so that isn't really his protection.
Judiciary is easy. They don't want to take drastic actions unless absolutely pushed. The entire idea is to be meticulous and try to avoid the political climate when making judgement. They are taking action but they havent taken their gloves off yet.
Congressional's reasons: your guess is as good as mine. Their majorities aren't that wide. moving 3 senators can affect policy, moving half the senators can get an impeachment trial. We'll see how things proceed there.
> If the Supreme Court and Congress has no enforcement power, though, what recourse is there?
While maybe not practical for the president, but at least for various cabinet Secretaries or Directors: if they do not follow court-issued orders could be found in contempt and jailed until the corrective orders are implemented?
Trump's new doctrine is that all employees of the executive branch, such as federal police, must take his interpretation of the law as correct. So if a court ordered that the Secretary of State be jailed, Trump can issue a memo saying "the Executive Branch interprets this legal decision as meaning that the Secretary of State should not be jailed", then any federal police officer or agency head has to comply with the official interpretation of the president or be fired.
I know this sounds corny, but people are the recourse. We are part of the checks and balances.
Whether it is as overt as a soldier refusing to follow an illegal order knowing they are risking court marshal, or as clandestine as mid-level bureaucrat slow-walking damaging policies, or people actually voting in local-to-national elections.
Democracy is not a passive form of government.
I completely agree, which is why I’m very pessimistic about the outlook. I have no faith that the American public is up to the task. It will demand too much discomfort, and sacrifice, while the alternative will ask only that they do nothing.
> I have no faith that the American public is up to the task. It will demand too much discomfort, and sacrifice
More up than many. There is no other way to prevent power grab. You can see it in post-USSR space what happens when there is no push-back from public.
don't forget that Guatemala had their paro nacional (national strike) a few years ago.
https://apnews.com/article/guatemala-protest-indigenous-giam...
Only recently has it become placid in the US. I expect social media also removes the desires to actually march or do something even louder. If Biden was this busy we'd be hearing a lot more "2nd Amendment!" talk.
as clandestine as mid-level bureaucrat slow-walking damaging policies
Or stealing papers from the President's desk in order to prevent him from signing them.
> I know this sounds corny, but people are the recourse. We are part of the checks and balances.
By "we" here, it seems you mean bureaucrats. But what if your opinions, as an individual, unelected bureaucrat are bad? I don't care what a mid-level bureaucrat's opinions on what policies are damaging is. He could be a neo-nazi for all I know. Constitutionally, we should go with the opinions of the people who won an election, instead of some random dude. I was taught that was what "democracy" was, not some random person taking advantage of their position to advance their personal goals.
When the guy paid to guard the door starts making his own decisions about who should get to come in, it's not good. It's corruption.
> But what if your opinions, as an individual, unelected bureaucrat are bad?
That’s a slightly silly stance to take. Modern developed countries live and die by the quality of their bureaucracy. Making every bureaucratic role an elected position would be insane.
How on earth would you organise elections for every single DMV employee? Or every single park ranger? Or every single government accountant or secretary? Every single civil servant involved in collecting the data used to drive policy decisions.
To get rid of “unelected bureaucrats” you would basically have to turn every federal role into an elected role. The federal government employees around 3 million people, even if we say that only 10% of them are “real unelected bureaucrats”, that’s still 300,000 elections you would need to hold every X number of years. How on earth would anyone ever manage any of that?
Thats before we get to the insanity which is Musk, the epitome of the “unelected bureaucrat” who seems to be the one leading the charge on many of these “policy decisions”, and publicly lambasting “unelected bureaucrats” as being corrupt and “undemocratic”.
25 replies →
I read that as an all-inclusive "we" and not so narrow as "bureaucrats". The examples given are not exhaustive, if you have an imsgination. There are many ways to fight for what you believe in. Look up mutual aid, participatory democracy, and the histories of women's suffrage and the fight in the USA for equal rights for Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color (that fight is nowhere near over). Start with loving yourself, extent that to others, and if you feel like you're teetering, lean on others and find your balance again.
If I'm the guy guarding the door (and I have been), I damn well make my own decisions to the best of my ability, to where I would be willing to explain the what and why of my actions.
>Constitutionally, we should go with the opinions of the people who won an election
That’s literally not how the constitution has ever worked.
Which unelected bureaucrats do you consider to have the power and leeway to make policy according to their personal goals, such that making them follow the President rather than the courts' interpretation of the law is the better option?
… oh boy, if you think that mid level bureaucrat might be a neo-nazi I might have some bad news for you about the highest level bureaucrats currently running your country..
You’re right. But if the guy paid to guard the door is told to start letting gangsters in by management, whistleblowing and civil disobedience become championed by the public rather than condemned, that’s “the people’s” check and balance to power. I don’t think we should legally protect the guard’s right to disobey orders, but we MUST protect the guard’s right to protest publicly.
1 reply →
Ask yourself: what's the difference between the SEC saying, "We declare that Facebook broke a securities law and shall now be fined $1M" and Trump saying, "I decree that the SEC declare that Facebook broke a securities law and shall now be fined $1M"? Either of those could be true or false. Either could be politically motivated. Either could hold up in court or be struck down. So what's the difference?
One[0] answer is, the former was vetted by someone knowledgeable and (at least allegedly) non-partisan who had the power to stop it if it was wrong. That's it. If the president really wants to fine Facebook he can - he can replace the SEC Director with the "My Pillow" guy if he wants, who can replace SEC employees with randomly chosen members MAGA types until the desired fine is eventually issued - but at least going through the bureaucracy confers the possibility of impartial and informed oversight. Vesting the power with the president directly doesn't do that; presidents are biased and partisan by design.
0: Another answer is the SEC has been granted the power to do that by Congress and the president has not; but I get that people on the "unitary executive" train disregard this, and
Protest and revolt. Government for the people and by the people
A majority of Americans voted for Trump. There was a pollster who was on CNN a day or two ago who looked into people who voted for Clinton and Biden in 2016 and 2020, but then for Trump in 2024. These people were (of course generally speaking) happy with Trump's performace so far this term. There frustration with the Democrats was what they perceived as a lack of action, and they see Trump as "moving fast".
It's clear the American people (again, majority speaking - I mean, I certainly care) don't care about what is going on with the federal government right now. The only thing that will make them care is if the economy tanks or if inflation spirals out of control.
> A majority of Americans voted for Trump
22.73% of Americans voted for Trump.
22.06% of Americans voted for Harris.
I wish Trump wasn't able to act like he has a huge massive sea change mandate, when he only won by 1%
> A majority of Americans voted for Trump
Not true. A majority of the Americans who chose to vote voted for Trump.
2 replies →
Congress has all the enforcement power, they can impeach the president whenever they want. Will they? I don't know, he's already gone so far in constitutional overreach that he's making Nixon blush.
Judiciary has more power than you'd think too. It's just that they try to act in good faith and generally do not want to throw people into civil contempt that often. The SCOTUS can even re-re-interpret the presidential immunity that Trump has abused to a pulp if they are angry enough. That was their call after all.
Will they do this? Highly unlikely, at least for Trump. I wouldn't be surprised if Musk flies too close to the sun, however.
> Congress has all the enforcement power, they can impeach the president whenever they want.
<Sad clown laughing noises>
Regarding the power of the judiciary in this, Trump's team is arguing right now before the Supreme Court that the judiciary has no power to constrain the President's power when he's acting solely within the Executive branch (which is basically all the time...) Oh, and as part of that filing he reminded the Supreme Court that they just granted him full immunity from prosecution.
For the cherry on the cake, the official Whitehouse X account tweeted out "GOD SAVE THE KING" with a picture of Trump with a crown on his head (I thought this was fake when I first saw it).
Sorry, the Republic is toast.
Okay, that's not even the craziest argument the judiciary has gotten. They'll just smash it down like everything else. If he ignores that, the court can escalate. Which is unprecedented for such office, but well in their powers. They can easily reinterpret presidential immunity as well in light of this entire month so that isn't really his protection.
>Sorry, the Republic is toast.
So what's your next action in life?
5 replies →
> Will they do this?
so the question is why?
The point about what they're legally allowed to do, and could do, is moot, if there's no will.
Judiciary is easy. They don't want to take drastic actions unless absolutely pushed. The entire idea is to be meticulous and try to avoid the political climate when making judgement. They are taking action but they havent taken their gloves off yet.
Congressional's reasons: your guess is as good as mine. Their majorities aren't that wide. moving 3 senators can affect policy, moving half the senators can get an impeachment trial. We'll see how things proceed there.
I think this is what the second amendment was about
Mind clarifying precisely what you mean by this?
They mean taking up arms against the government.
> If the Supreme Court and Congress has no enforcement power, though, what recourse is there?
While maybe not practical for the president, but at least for various cabinet Secretaries or Directors: if they do not follow court-issued orders could be found in contempt and jailed until the corrective orders are implemented?
Trump's new doctrine is that all employees of the executive branch, such as federal police, must take his interpretation of the law as correct. So if a court ordered that the Secretary of State be jailed, Trump can issue a memo saying "the Executive Branch interprets this legal decision as meaning that the Secretary of State should not be jailed", then any federal police officer or agency head has to comply with the official interpretation of the president or be fired.
Jailed by whom? Trump controls the executive branch.
sic semper tyrannis
Hopefully we never get there. But America should suffer no kings.
Like this guy, tweeted out by the official Whitehouse X account? https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/1892295984928993698
This executive order just brought us there.
This could be construed as a threat, given they were the words of Lincoln's assassin.