The goal is to dismantle the system (of checks and balances) so that it's not in the way of becoming an authoritarian regime. When this is your goal, you realize Russia is not your enemy, it's your biggest ally.
There’s no “checks and balances” within the executive branch.
What we have now is an undemocratic regime where the executive branch is permanently controlled by a city that voted 91-6 for the losing candidate. It’s like those crosswalk buttons that aren’t connected to anything. No matter how people vote, the government just gives us more immigration and more globalism.
E.g. No presidential candidate has ever run on a platform of more immigration. Support for increasing immigration hasn’t topped 35% in decades. Yet the foreign born population has grown from 5% to 15% since 1970. Nobody voted for that. Who did it?
What do you mean by "an executive branch that is controlled by a city" ? I thought the executive branch was headed by the president who then has most of the say about who heads up the departments. I don't think the president or the people he appoints to run positions have anything to do with the city, they can come from outside of D.C.
I don't think a presidential candidate has ever run on adding more debt either, but that has increased at an even higher rate. How about birth rate? I don't think any candidate has campaigned on lowering the birthrate either, but that has dropped from 17.6 per thousand in 1970 to 12 per thousand in 2020.
I would really like to understand why you believe that the executive branch doesn't have the ability to govern because people that would be carrying out the laws must also be politically aligned with the laws. I also would like to hear why you think that just because something wasn't part of any presidential campaign it somehow supports your opinion that the people who carrying out the instructions in the laws - is an explanation for how the president and cabinet don't have any real power.
> What do you mean by "an executive branch that is controlled by a city" ? I thought the executive branch was headed by the president who then has most of the say about who heads up the departments. I don't think the president or the people he appoints to run positions have anything to do with the city, they can come from outside of D.C.
There are almost 700,000 federal employees in DC and its suburbs. The President appoints only about 4,000 people. Many of those people are the ones in agencies making rules that have the force of law.
> I don't think a presidential candidate has ever run on adding more debt either, but that has increased at an even higher rate.
They have—they all run on cutting taxes.
> How about birth rate? I don't think any candidate has campaigned on lowering the birthrate either, but that has dropped from 17.6 per thousand in 1970 to 12 per thousand in 2020.
The federal government directly controls the immigration rate, unlike the birth rate.
> I would really like to understand why you believe that the executive branch doesn't have the ability to govern because people that would be carrying out the laws must also be politically aligned with the laws.
Because politics has become polarized along moral dimensions. E.g. people don’t think immigration is merely a knob to turn, but instead is a moral issue, with a more “diverse” country being a moral good in and of itself. You can’t trust those people to work hard carrying out mass deportations when the public votes for the guy promising to do that.
> I also would like to hear why you think that just because something wasn't part of any presidential campaign it somehow supports your opinion that the people who carrying out the instructions in the laws - is an explanation for how the president and cabinet don't have any real power.
The knobs that control the immigration rate are turned by people who as a matter of ideology believe diversifying the country is a moral good in and of itself. So they simply ignore what the public thinks and continue to turn the knob in favor of increased immigration.
okay? DC doesn't vote for the president. Your premise is bizarre from the get-go.
>They have—they all run on cutting taxes.
That's never how they market it though.
By the same logic, they run on "creating new jobs", but businesses love to prioritize those who can pay below minimum. I don't think Immigration is th end-all be-all problem that we should be looking this deeply into right now. Even H1b's and offshoring impact skilled labor more than that.
> There’s no “checks and balances” within the executive branch.
My comment was more general.
> What we have now is an undemocratic regime where the executive branch is permanently controlled by a city that voted 91-6 for the losing candidate.
The alternative will be an undemocratic regime where the executive "branch" controls all the other ones in perpetuity.
EDIT: Sigh... To me, this is obvious, as I've personally witnessed it happen in several different countries, not to mention historical examples. Worrying about H1B and similar right now is like worrying about hanging the family portrait in the best way possible while the house is on fire.
Note: I would be happy to be proven wrong and I hope you revisit these threads in a few years to see if you have changed your opinion about MAGA (I will surely do).
There are quite a number of checks and balances within each branch, executive included. Some backed by law and others backed by tradition. Do you have some expertise in this that you're drawing from?
That’s like saying “general and special relativity” is a “theory.” Technically correct but misleading.
Articles I, II, and III, have nearly identical clauses vesting the legislative, judicial, and executive power, respectively, in Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court.
Does anyone think Congress can create a law that enables the legislative or judicial powers to be exercised by employees independent of the control of the constitutional actors in which those powers are vested? It would be madness to say that Congress can create a law creating an entity in the judicial branch that can adjudicate cases without oversight from an Article III judge. Nobody thinks that’s true.
> Does anyone think Congress can create a law that enables the legislative or judicial powers to be exercised by employees independent of the control of the constitutional actors in which those powers are vested?
Yes.
Apart from the specific enumerated executive powers in Article II, Sections 2 and 3, the "executive power of the United States" is whatever the Congress says it is. If Article II Section 1 had been intended as a preemptive, unitary-executive grant, there'd have been no reason to enumerate specific powers.
As has been remarked, there's a reason Article I (concerning Congress) comes first.
Article II says: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President.” Congress can give the executive more or less power through law, but whatever executive power it does create must ultimately be invested in the president, not someone else.
The Force is also available to both Jedi and Sith alike. The use of a 'the' nomenclature is not indicative that the subject is solely available to a singular individual, only that the power is available.
In Commonwealth Nations "the Crown" has ultimate deciding power, however "the Crown" simultaneously refers to functions of the executive, legislative (parliament), and judicial (Supreme Court and others), governance and the civil service. A Crown Prosecutor is equally known as "the Crown", as the monarch. Both are two very different individuals, but possess the same power, and use "the" nomenclature.
> The Force is also available to both Jedi and Sith alike. The use of a 'the' nomenclature is not indicative that the subject is solely available to a singular individual, only that the power is available.
In your construction, all the work is being done by your use of the word “available.” But the constitution doesn’t say “the executive power is available to the President.” It says: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” The word “vested” means “secured in the possession of or assigned to a person.” So the executive power isn’t merely available to the President. It’s assigned to and given to the possession of the President.
Your Crown example actually proves the opposite of your point. That phraseology reflects the traditional british notion that all executive power is vested in the king, who is the chief prosecutor but may act through delegates: https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/con... (p. 1707).
> In your construction, all the work is being done by your use of the word “available.”
In your construction, all the work is being done by "the." OK, let's play the same game, this time with the word executive: Suppose that Congress, using its authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause, creates separate governmental agencies — not subject to plenary presidential supervision — and gives those agencies the power to carry out specified tasks. You're complaining that this falls within the definition of "executive" power and thus must be presidentially supervised. The obvious response is: OK, we won't call it "executive" power, we'll call it something else. Word games? Sure, but that's what you're doing.
But, someone might respond, the term "executive power" must be interpreted today as it supposedly was understood by the Framers in 1787. That ipse-dixit contention is purely a matter of what Justice White aptly referred to in Roe as "raw judicial power" — and recall that after Dred Scott, a more-extreme version of such a contention was finally resolved at Appomattox as the culmination of four years of bloody civil war.
In my construction, all the work is done by an alternative interpretation of "the".
The Crown example still works as the Parliament is not selected by the monarch. It is not elected by the monarch. The monarch does not possess the power to reject them. Yet, the Parliament are still referred to as "the Crown", and possesses the executive power of the Crown.
Equally so, the Governor General of any Commonwealth Nation is free to reject the orders of the monarch, as they possess the executive power of the Crown. The monarch is also free to fire them for doing so, as the monarch also has the power of the Crown. Both are on equal footing. In the words of Whitlam "Well may we say God save the Queen, because nothing will save the governor-general."
Multiple people have possession of the executive power in such systems, even though the word "the" is used to refer to it. That alone is not enough to indicate that a singular individual controls it.
The term “checks and balances” refers to the constitution. The constitution says, as the first sentence of Article II: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”
Article I and Article III have nearly identical language. Nobody thinks Congressional staffers or judicial law clerks impose “checks and balances” on the elected or appointed officials that hold the constitutional office. Why is the President any different?
I think you are right that the US constitution, as originally written, doesn't provide any internal "checks and balances" on the executive branch, other than the President. Congress and the judiciary act as external checks and balances on the President (and also inferior officials, since Congress can impeach inferior officials, and the courts can rule against them). The President acts as an internal check and balance on the executive branch (powers to fire inferior officials, direct them, demand information from them)
Not to say that I think this good policy or constitution design – it grants the President an essentially monarchical position. As The Knoxville Journal once said (9 February 1896), "Great Britain is a republic with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king". I think the more collegial form of executive branch leadership found in the Westminster system – in which a Prime Minister has to continually keep the confidence of their party, since they can be removed at any time for any reason (no allegations of misconduct required); in which Cabinet makes decisions by majority vote (and the PM sometimes loses the vote), unlike the US Cabinet where no votes are taken – leads to better governance.
Maybe, one day, "Prime Minister of the United States" will be a real job title
> There’s no “checks and balances” within the executive branch.
The check and balance within every branch is the law, one which many state AG and court officials believe or have ruled is being violated.
The law is quite literally a limit on arbitrary uses of power. It is a check on concentrated power, and balances competing interests.
> Who did it?
Oligarchs.
H1B visa/undocumented labor are an anti labor power policy. Not only does it increase the supply of the workforce suppressing wages, but it gives companies coercive power over foreign laborers, preventing them from ever going on strike or asking for rights. Worse, when things start going poorly, oligarchs blame these people who just wanted a better life and then use the oligarchy controlled media to deflect people's rage away from the people hoarding wealth and power onto someone weaker than them, which gives them a sense of agency.
> the check and balance within every branch is the law
“The law” is it enforced and interpreted by humans. And the fundamental axiom of the constitution is that nobody can be trusted. Do you think the framers went to all that trouble to create this tripartite system, and then assume that all three branches would be checked by unelected prosecutors? If what you said was true, why does the constitution not mention an attorney general that could enforce “the law?”
Trump basically is Russia. He's a paper billionaire who likely gets direct funding from Russia. He just opened up the Green Card system that makes it trivial for Russian oligarchs to get a U.S. Green Card. He even mentioned them in the announcement.
All of this stuff is directly out of Russia's playbook. It's also Trump's, but Trump is too much of an idiot to accomplish this himself. He knows almost nothing about anything. I can near guarantee that he is being coached.
> According to the White House, the Russian reporter’s presence was unplanned.
> “TASS was not on the approved list of media for today’s pool,” a White House official said. “As soon as it came to the attention of press office staff that he was in the Oval, he was escorted out by the Press Secretary."
> The White House did not address how the unapproved reporter was able to gain access to the Oval Office.
Only what's supposed to be one of the most secure sites in all of America, with one of the most difficult rooms to access anywhere. "We're not really sure how Russian media got in."
