The real takeaway is when a big project can be paused entirely due to one presidents very specific / frivolous whims - we won’t be able to do big projects in the current order. We need a shift in the constitutional order where the whims of one person isnt fused with the bureaucracy

▲

trymas 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> We need a shift in the constitutional order where the whims of one person isnt fused with the bureaucracy

Correct me if I'm wrong, though there are already protections there. It's just president, senate, congress, SCOTUS all agree on this.

IMHO - most effective constitutional change would be to get rid of first past the post election system, electoral colleges, gerrymandering, etc. I think USA's two party system made it to the place where it is right now, seemingly on the verge of turning into one-party system.

▲

softwaredoug a day ago | parent [-]

The US has had worse structural power imbalances in the past. It’s gotten over them (after a generation or more) by

- coalition shifts - every election, new groups going and out of each party

- demographic shifts - shrinking / growing / moving around of different groups

- external shock - war / depression / ?? changes incentives of governance (see Civil War, Great Depression)

- hegemons dilemma - the in power party over time goes through in fighting, over confidence, etc (see Republicans becoming corrupt in The Gilded Age)

Alternate constitutional order can mean a lot besides amendments - or even using Federal power. It can be about organizing economic power to reject illegitimacy. It can mean organizing the Democratic Party differently as more of a shadow set of social institutions that support people. It can mean leveraging state power, and building coalitions of blue states. Or other creative approaches to power.

	▲	hammock a day ago \| parent [-]
		Don't overlook the influence of global soft power and the non-profit sector. Demographic shifts and a robust social safety net are also naturally reshaping the landscape

▲

duxup a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The laws exist, SCOTUS majority just doesn’t want to enforce them because their guy is in power.

▲

softwaredoug a day ago | parent [-]

Maybe but I think it’s more about they think in terms of unitary executive. So if there’s any discretion given the agencies - I don’t know in this case - SCOTUS lets the president decide.

In many ways this is more how a parliamentary democracy exists that a republic.

▲

duxup a day ago | parent [-]

POTUS power has already extended well beyond even congress.

▲

softwaredoug a day ago | parent [-]

How? Congress has given tremendous discretion to POTUS. This President is actually using it.

Congress assumed

- it had a legislative veto (any committee could override an agency)

- independent agencies existed.

So it gave broad authority with those assumed checks.

SCOTUS declared legislative veto unconstitutional in 1982. And administrative state is actively going away.

So POTUS can do a lot of damage using the law itself.

This is the new system. Dems need to use it too.

	▲	Alive-in-2025 a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		So we had this creeping loss of power to the president over time in the last 20 or 50 years, including investigations in the 1970s or dealing with Nixon. But Congress never really decided this in one big step, it just happened slowly by pushes from the heritage foundation and others. Congress can take back its power. There's a reason why the Republicans are trying to gerrymander the house so the Democrats don't get a majority. It wouldn't just fix it but it would be a start towards starting to block overreach
	▲	duxup a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Tariffs is the obvious example.

▲

PleasureBot a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Half of the USA, or at least half of its voting population, now supports the idea that the role of government is simply to be an extension of the personality of the Chief Executive. Essentially, whatever Trump feels is the policy of the government and therefor is the law.

	▲	sleight42 a day ago \| parent [-]
		I guess you're being downvoted because either: 1) Too many conservative tech bros here or 2) independent voters may not be aligned with this crap yet many voted for him anyway. Probably both.