USA Politics

[Cornfed Hick]

Obviously they aren't, and I think the US should start to have a serious talk about that.

Insofar as you are using the term "checks and balances" as it is traditionally used in the U.S. (as described by James Madison in the Federalist Papers No. 51), I don't think Trump undoing Obama's executive orders and agreements presents a Constitutional "checks and balances" issue at all. That phrase applies to the three branches of government: the executive, legislative and judicial. The Paris Accord was entered into by the U.S. solely by virtue of an executive agreement -- it was not, as I understand it, a treaty that Congress ratified. Therefore, though this is far from my area of legal expertise, I don't think this presents a checks and balances situation. One President thought the Paris Climate Agreement was a good idea, and committed the U.S. to it. Another President -- who ran and won on a platform that included a pledge to pull out of that agreement -- thinks it was a bad idea, and refuses to enforce citizens' adherence to that agreement. Whether the agreement is enforceable by other signatories, or whether it was a good idea for the U.S. to pull out of the accord, is certainly debatable. But a President can undo his predecessors' executive orders. The expanded use of executive orders over the last 2-3 administrations probably DOES disrupt the checks and balances envisioned by Madison, but that's a much bigger, more complicated issue that I don't have the time or inclination to tackle right now.

 

[Forostar]

But a President can undo his predecessors' executive orders.

While I sense it is much more convenient to talk about this rather than about the nature and impact of Trumps decision itself, it still satisfies me to see the next President can, and most certainly will, undo one of the dumbest decisions ever made.

Lots of damage done will be, before that happens.

 

[LooseCannon]

Let's be fair, Forostar - Cornfed specifically noted that

The expanded use of executive orders over the last 2-3 administrations probably DOES disrupt the checks and balances

Which indicates, of course, the use of expanded executive orders during the Bush, Obama, and now Trump administrations, all of which have been forced and allowed by multiple things.

Of course Trump is doing damage. But his followers consider a lot of what Obama did to be damaging. Not saying I agree with them, but I get that point of view, exactly because I feel the same about Trump right now.

 

[Deleted member 7164]

Lights, camera, action!

Edit : this video found in comments of the video above. Not U.S. per se but terrorism releated. UK Iraqi immigrant a bit cheerful after an attack, and this for me means he already knows he's under some sort of surveillance but doesn't give a fuck.

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

Edit 2 : http://www.snopes.com/cnn-muslim-protests-london/ Official explanation

 

[Forostar]

Let's be fair, Forostar - Cornfed specifically noted that

Which indicates, of course, the use of expanded executive orders during the Bush, Obama, and now Trump administrations, all of which have been forced and allowed by multiple things.

Of course Trump is doing damage. But his followers consider a lot of what Obama did to be damaging. Not saying I agree with them, but I get that point of view, exactly because I feel the same about Trump right now.

I was specifically talking about doing damage to the environment.

 

[LooseCannon]

James Comey's prepared remarks to the Senate have leaked a day early.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/do...ared-remarks-for-his-upcoming-testimony/2465/

 

[AlexS]

What's the point of making a long term deal with the US when the next guy might abruptly undo everything?

Any long-term deal that the US makes needs to be ratified by the Senate. President Obama, for reasons of his own, never submitted it for ratification -- which means his successor is free to withdraw from it.

 

[LooseCannon]

I don't think anyone is suggesting otherwise. I think it's more a complaint that the US Senate, supposed to be the sober body of advisory for the executive branch, probably isn't a place you can pass much in the way of bills anymore, and especially not ratify treaties. Speaking as someone from Canada, a nation that has excruciatingly close ties with the US on everything from trade (NAFTA) to local military affairs (NORAD) to banking (FATCA) to water affairs (Great Lakes Charter) to global military affairs (NATO), I truly hope that most of what the current president is doing with international affairs can be withdrawn from in a few years. Hell, I hope that Trump quits/gets fired/etc so that Pence can restore some fucking sensibility to NAFTA and NATO.

But yeah. If 1995 was today and Trump wanted to negotiate NAFTA, I'd be like...no thanks, give me free trade with Europe instead. They got rid of their crazy people in Brexit.

 

[Mosh]

I am not arguing whether it's allowed or not but rather the effect of a flimsy US on the global stage. This goes well beyond Trump. Can the US be trusted to hold its end in a deal that is supposed to last well beyond the current government makeup? I'm not really sure what the solution is there (or if this is even an issue exclusive to the US) but a conversation about weakening the executive branch would be a start.

 

[AlexS]

I'm not really sure what the solution is there (or if this is even an issue exclusive to the US) but a conversation about weakening the executive branch would be a start.

There are a lot of us here who've been arguing for more legislative checks on the executive branch for at least 9 years now, some of us longer than that. Trump may finally lead to some of those checks coming into effect.

It won't happen without a change of culture in the legislature, however -- too many legislators have gotten too used to seeing their positions as permanent, and as a result do everything with an eye towards re-election. That means taking few risks when introducing legislation and casting votes (including introducing and voting on symbolic legislative measures that have no chance of passing); and talking a big game about making changes when they're fundraising and campaigning but then failing to really do anything to push those changes forward once they're elected.

The other piece of restoring Constitutional checks and balances and reducing the executive branch's power is sharply curtailing the administrative state -- a "fourth branch" of government that was not provided for in the Constitution, and that is nearly unaccountable to the voters. Congress likes it because it can delegate quasi-legislative action to it without having to take elective responsibility for the regulations it puts into effect; and the executive branch likes having the power to essentially draft its own laws without having to go through Congress. It's a shame the judicial branch didn't strangle the administrative state in its crib when it had the chance.

 

[Deleted member 7164]

 

[LooseCannon]

It won't happen without a change of culture in the legislature, however -- too many legislators have gotten too used to seeing their positions as permanent, and as a result do everything with an eye towards re-election. That means taking few risks when introducing legislation and casting votes (including introducing and voting on symbolic legislative measures that have no chance of passing); and talking a big game about making changes when they're fundraising and campaigning but then failing to really do anything to push those changes forward once they're elected.

Well, the other part of that is that the polarization of the American people causes them not to push their legislators to do anything of note, because there's no risk of person A being voted out, as person B is a Democrat/Republican and therefore evil. The real dangers are in the primaries, and primaries usually occur from the left/right (Dem vs Rep) so the actual danger in most safe seats is losing your seat due to being primaried out for being impure. Some of this is due to persistent gerrymandering at the state level, some of this is due to the primary structure in general, and some of this is just plain old people being idiots.

The other piece of restoring Constitutional checks and balances and reducing the executive branch's power is sharply curtailing the administrative state -- a "fourth branch" of government that was not provided for in the Constitution, and that is nearly unaccountable to the voters. Congress likes it because it can delegate quasi-legislative action to it without having to take elective responsibility for the regulations it puts into effect; and the executive branch likes having the power to essentially draft its own laws without having to go through Congress. It's a shame the judicial branch didn't strangle the administrative state in its crib when it had the chance.

This sounds a lot like the Deep State conspiracy theory that is Trumpeted by the current administration. The "administrative state" is authorized under the executive branch, and the legislative branch controls the ability to make it do what they want. Of course, the President can dictate orders to the people who work for him, but if Congress passes a law that says "Hey, no more EPA" (as an example), the EPA disappears. I don't think the problem is that the executive has no oversight - I think the problem is that the legislative branch of the government isn't doing its job.

 

[bearfan]

A lot of it is people running their own little kingdoms .. and do no want to give those up ... and Congress (either party) leaving tons of blanks to be filled in. There is the old saying about power in a vacuum.

 

[LooseCannon]

There is the old saying about power in a vacuum.

Exactly. And Congress is providing a huge vacuum. So is the president, to be fair - Trump hasn't nominated hundreds and hundreds of posts.

 

[bearfan]

True .. but to also be fair, he has rolled back some regulation and some of this type of thing .. within a political spectrum to be sure and and just a teaspoon in the ocean, but the feds have their hands in so many jars it will take a long time (and effort and willingness) to unwind it all

 

[LooseCannon]

Depending. Some people think it's a good thing, too. I don't mind extensive federal administrative departments, but I do think they need to be regulated both by politicians and by oversight committees.

 

[Forostar]

A head of FBI said five times that the President/White House lies. Unprecedented.

*gets popcorn*

 

[AlexS]

This sounds a lot like the Deep State conspiracy theory that is Trumpeted by the current administration.

"Deep State" refers to careerists in in federal departments, some of whom allegedly undermine the political authority in charge by leaking, sabotaging policies handed down from above, etc.

"Administrative state" as I used it refers to departments that promulgate federal regulations, which have the force of law, under authority delegated to them by Congress but without Congress voting on the exact regulations themselves. Example: Congress authorizes EPA to regulate some kind of pollution; but the exact nature of those regulations (limits, fines, filtration or inspection requirements, etc.) is left to the officials at the EPA. If those regulations are considered by voters to not be beneficial enough to justify their costs, they can't vote out the people who promulgated them -- the accountability is too diffused through the legislative and executive branches.

 

[bearfan]

That is really a problem ... not to even begin getting into duplicate (or more) departments with often conflicting regulations. It makes it impossible to keep up with and really benefits (not shockingly) larger companies who have the legal staff to navigate through these mazes .. which is why you will see them often support regulation that has a slight to moderate impact on them, but kills competition.

 

[AlexS]

Comey's testimony and the president's clownish responses probably speak for themselves, that's why there's no discussion about it here, I assume

I did notice that a lot of Democrats who were looking forward to Comey's testimony like it was Christmas Eve didn't have a lot to cheer about when he was done admitting facts establishing that -- while Trump did some things that were dumb and probably inappropriate -- Trump in fact was not a target of a criminal investigation, and didn't do anything amounting to obstruction of justice.