Modern democracy (was: COVID-19 freakout thread)

[Caravan Ray]

Cool - I will listen. I have been a big fan of Dan Carlin for years. I love his Hardcore History podcasts

[Lunkhead]

I'd be really curious to hear Constitutional Mike's take on Trump's personal police force invading US cities and illegally arresting people.

[Lunkhead]

Constitutional Mike, what are your thoughts on executive orders? I am wondering lately, why the hell do they exist and how does that make any sense? It seems akin to the president being able to make laws sort of, unilaterally, which seems very much not within the domain of the executive branch. And the only way these things can be dealt with is for the ACLU etc. to go to court and then maybe months after they're decreed they can be struck down. Even then the executive seems to be able to just ignore that and keep doing what it wants. It all seems very autocratic and I don't get what the benefit is to our democracy.

[Lunkhead]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

I guess if their scope was purely limited to declaring how the executive would operate within its own bureaucracy and within the law as determined by Congress, that seems less undemocratic, but, they seem to be much broader scope than that in modern history. (Not just Trump, of course, but Obama too, etc.)

EDIT: Wow, TIL the Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order and it took ~3 years from then till the 13th Amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation

[grumpymike]

Wow, TIL the Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order and it took ~3 years from then till the 13th Amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation

Exactly. If you're against executive orders, then you're a racist!

I think the important thing to realize is that Trump has signed a lot of silly executive orders that might sound more real than they are. A lot of them have no quantitative end goal. "I'm instructing the department of homeland security to think really hard about baseball." In many cases, it's mostly for show - he can say he "did" something and feel like a grandiose leader, all while not actually doing anything.

A good example of an effective executive order was Obama's regarding marijuana. He ordered the DOJ to not prosecute cases in states that decriminalized marijuana. And... there were still some cases, which meant people were hesitant to get into the marijuana industry at the time. (Drug law is also a good example of abuse of the interstate commerce clause. The federal government technically shouldn't have a say about drug usage, but they argued "drugs could theoretically cross state lines" and stupid courts agreed.)

[jb]

DACA is an executive order too.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferre ... d_Arrivals

[Lunkhead]

Again, I think, sure, make orders about how stuff within the executive branch is going to work. That's like, a managerial thing, makes sense for head of the executive branch to do that. But stuff that's saying what's allowed/disallowed at large ... it seems like something we don't need. And it seems like it could be too easily abused, especially when the only accountability around is it for somebody to have to take it to court and for that process to potentially have to work its way up to the Supreme Court even. If the issue is that Congress doesn't actually do anything, then, let's solve that problem rather than create a whole set of new potential problems trying to use some "clever" workaround to the problem. Those of you in software have probably seen many times when people make overly "clever" workarounds which actually wind up just making the overall situation worse than if the root issue had just been addressed at an organizational level. "Well, we couldn't get the new thing we wanted built right now, so we figured out a way to hack our existing thing to do new stuff sort of but in a poor way and also it negatively impacts how the existing thing does the old stuff, but, we got what we want, sort of!"

Ah forget it, people just suck and we're doomed.

[jb]

As a pretty in-the-tank Democrat, the way I see it (and I am definitely definitely biased) is that the Obama administration bent over backwards to find compromise and were stiff-armed by Republicans in Congress, and that’s when he made the pen and phone comment. Whereas Trump seems to want to use an executive order to accomplish goals that haven’t even been introduced in Congress, or which it just SEEMs to him like there is broad pushback on.

Again, I am a very biased Obama voter.

JB

[grumpymike]

the Obama administration bent over backwards to find compromise

I feel like if I cross-checked whether there were battles in congress over every Obama executive order, I could find some that don't fit your rosy narrative. IIRC Obama got trigger happy near the end of his term.

Whereas Trump seems to want to use an executive order to accomplish goals

To say Trump wants to accomplish something - other than gratifying his enormous ego - is incredibly generous.

If the issue is that Congress doesn't actually do anything, then, let's solve that problem rather than create a whole set of new potential problems trying to use some "clever" workaround to the problem.

While I largely agree with the sentiment, "but people are literally suffering right now" is a pretty compelling reason, and if you're in a position to do something to help, shouldn't you? To play off your software analogy, your proposal is like waiting for design by committee to work itself out...

I have to say, it's been amusing watching Democrats rediscover the merits of Federalism and executive limits these last 4 years.

Ah forget it, people just suck and we're doomed.

People are alright. It's people in large quantities that are dangerous.

I'd be really curious to hear Constitutional Mike's take on Trump's personal police force invading US cities and illegally arresting people.

I guess I'll address this. The fact that we know about this happening, that liberals and conservatives have both cried foul, and that people are alive to talk about it, actually says a lot about our society and its robustness. The government will be taken to court and a trial will likely find that they overstepped. Compare this to almost every other country. Heck, in Australia, they're going door to door with police to make sure people obey curfews.

Now, beyond that, the news coming out of the protests recently has been pretty spotty and suspect. Every headline is there for a reason. The question is: who's narrative? Sometimes that reason is the editor, and sometimes the subject. Perhaps the administration wants to stoke the protests because they know they can win the election if it becomes a "law-and-order" referendum. Perhaps we don't hear the more nuanced narrative because it ruins the outrage narrative.

[Lunkhead]

OK, so, now four more executive orders, seemingly usurping control over taxation etc. from Congress. WTF?

[Caravan Ray]

How’s that out of date Constitution working for you Grumpy Mike?

Is your King substitute working well for you?

When are grown-ups going to take charge over there? Do we need to send Jacinda over?

[Lunkhead]

Yes, please, send help.

[Lunkhead]

We need some international peace keeping forces in here, and we seriously need some international election oversight resources.

[Lunkhead]

Oh wow. apparently VP Mike Pence actually concluded his Republican National Convention speech with:

"... make America great again ... again!"

[irwin]

"... make America great again ... again!"

So, wait. Is it great right now, or was it bad until it was made great earlier in the current administration’s term before it became bad again and now we need to make it great again again? I am confused.

[Lunkhead]

Cool, cool, cool cool cool. Trump has a rally and tells his mob to ransack Congress and go after Mike Pence. What do they do? They swarm the capital building, climb up on it, get inside, etc. The congress people certifying the election results had to stop and seek shelter. This is fine!

[gizo]

Are they a mob, or a bunch of terrorists?

[Lunkhead]

Both I guess.

[sleepysilverdoor]

I guess the good news is that you could call this a *failed* coup rather than a successful one.

[Caravan Ray]

I guess the good news is that you could call this a *failed* coup rather than a successful one.

No. The good news is that even with COVID travel restrictions -Americans cans still enjoy US interference in a democratically elected government - but at least they can do it at home this year.

[grumpymike]

The good news is that even with COVID travel restrictions -Americans cans still enjoy US interference in a democratically elected government - but at least they can do it at home this year.

You say a lot of dumb stuff, but kudos. Perfect. You can go on break for 2021.

Iraq to send peacekeeping force to USA.

[Lunkhead]

Our Constitution is getting so much more of a workout than usual. The House has impeached Trump. There will be a Senate trial, with a newly Democratic-controlled Senate. But, it would take 17 Republican Senators to get on board to reach a two-thirds majority and convict Trump. Apparently the Senate isn't going to convene till after Biden's inauguration. It's a damned circus here, and it will be so for weeks longer at least. Probably months/years as all the Trump supporters won't go away or decide to just chill no matter what happens. Ugh.