It’s not far away from dying. I would argue that it’s already too late. The trump administration has shown that it can seize the power to control spending which is constitutionally an exclusive power if congress and courts can’t and won’t do anything about it. We are past a constitutional crisis, republicans had a theory of a unitary executive and prove they can stream roll other branches. Now trump and others are talking about a third term. They play it off as a joke but that’s how they have succeeded in moving the goal posts already.
The US spent the last hundred years shifting power from congress to the president, because nobody in congress wanted the blame for any decisions and be either primaried, or lose the election. Trump isn't seizing power, he's just using the power voluntarily given to him. American democracy wasn't ended by a revolution, it was ended by lawfully elected cowards.
No. He is seizing it explicitly as laid out in project 2025. There is an explicit theory of a unitary executive that they say give him power. But they also mapped out the levers of power, control and possible resistance and are systematically and aggressively going after them. I would also point out that the American people didn’t vote for this because trump explicitly denied he would follow project 2025, and yet is implementing every detail down to the letter.
- President-elect Donald Trump and his top advisers have long cited impoundment, a little-known legal theory [... that] essentially claims that any president has unilateral authority to ignore Congress’s funding bills and withhold or “impound” funds meant for programs, agencies, or departments deemed unsuitable by the White House.https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/3244202/...
Impoundment, or rather the idea that it is an issue, is a weird concept in general. Congress legislates executive directives that should be acted upon and provides a budget. They don't say "spend every dollar we give" and they rarely define metrics for success to know if the executive branch is meeting their goals.
The fact that the Trump administration is able to so easily chest the game and roll back agencies is a side effect of congress writing thousands of pages of legislation without ever bothering to define precisely what is expected of the executive branch.
No, this is quite wrong. It is well understood in American law that "spend every dollar we give" is exactly what the budget approved by Congress means. It is then the duty of the executive branch to do so in an effective manner.
Laws shouldn't need to go into details on exactly how every last dollar is to be spent, they set the amount and the goals, and the executive exists to handle the details.
The problem is that the Trump administration is ignoring the laws they don't like. They're even trying to ignore a very explicit constitutional amendment (birthright citizenship). Writing more detailed laws would do nothing to make the Trump team follow the law.
I'd be very curious where in our laws it is written that congressional budgets must be spent in their entirety every year. I could just be wrong here, happy to learn something new.
> Laws shouldn't need to go into details on exactly how every last dollar is to be spent.
Laws should go into every detail that matters to those writing it. If all they care about is that the money is spent and that there's an agency with a certain name and one line mandate, sure that's all they need to specify. If the legislators cafe about what is or is not done, or if they care about any specific metrics of success, those should be codified in the law to make the intention and expectation clear.
Birthright citizenship and immigration is a whole other can of worms. We can go there but it's pretty off topic here.
> I'd be very curious where in our laws it is written that congressional budgets must be spent in their entirety every year
It's included in the "CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET AND IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT OF 1974"[0], Title X, at least as a base assumption. It's also part of the text of the annual appropriations bill(s), on most subjects.
Too bad the Chevron doctrine was ditched then. Now Congress has to specify everything, maybe? Who knows? I think that uncertainty is the point thought. The Judges Nine have a project 2025, too.
A lot of people don’t like that “regulation” has been delegated to unelected agencies instead of having congress make laws.
Is the current structure of agencies with delegated regulatory powers specified in the constitution? I don’t think so. It isn’t explicitly forbidden, but it’s not like it’s what the founders had in mind or wrote down.
The current administration’s approach is activist in the sense that it would be more direct to just outlaw the current structure via congress. I suspect that isn’t possible at the moment due to the entanglement of corporate interests, regulatory agencies and lobbying money.
Activist action isn’t exactly new though. Maybe it hasn’t happened on the right wing as much in America in living memory, it feels like they felt like they were above it for a long time. They don’t feel like that anymore.
What "many people" don't like about this system is just how effective it is at regulating their businesses. The alternative - that the 535 members of Congress should regulate every detail of every facet of federal life - is completely untenable.
The reality is that Congress has been effectively neutralized as a law making institution for at least two decades, barely able to do more than pass the budget and one or two big items per election cycle. The dream of people like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg and all the others is that the executive state will be similarly neutered, unable to effectively regulate any kind of big business interests.
The vast majority of the American people neither knows nor cares about the difference between a law that Congress passed and a regulation enacted by an agency of the executive (or between those and state lawd or even city regulations, much of the time). They care whether those rules are useful or detrimental to them. This is why agencies like the CFPB, that Musk and Trump have essentially dismantled (much to Mark Andreesen's delight, I'm sure) was extremely popular: normal people could see how it helped them or their friends. They didn't care that it was pursuing regulations not directly codified by Congress.
Trump is continuing a trend that has been going on since at least Bush Jr. Presidents for a couple decades now have been moving more power into the executive branch.
Obama and Biden both talked about undoing this, but neither did. The Patriot Act still exists, three letter agencies still have authority to spy on American citizens, and immigration laws still defy what's written on the Statue of Liberty (I think most have forgotten how harsh Obama was on southern immigration).
... which has been allowed and caused by the Republican congressional obstructionism going on since the 90's. Bush, Obama, and Biden could have reduced their own use of executive power, but they couldn't undo it - rather it was Congress that would have had to reign them in and shrink executive power. Just as the current Congress is ultimately allowing Trump's ongoing authoritarian power grabs, rather than passing laws and impeaching.
For another example, take the frequent neofascist argument that the federal agencies are "unaccountable" unless they are under the direct command of the President. No, the agencies were created by Congress, and have always been accountable to Congress. But Congress has not been doing its job, which is why they seem unaccountable.
> No, the agencies were created by congress, and have always been accountable to Congress. But Congress hasn't been doing its job, which is why they seem unaccountable.
If Congress hasn't been doing its job, then they don't just seem unaccountable, they actually are.
The levers of accountability could have been pulled any time, so it stands to say that they were still accountable. Perhaps they weren't held accountable as much as you or I would have liked. But the authority was there.
But either way I don't really see what greater point you're trying to make.
Just that there is no practical difference between "seeming unaccountable" and "being unaccountable", especially if, as you say, "the levers of accountability could have been pulled", but weren't. If the departments aren't being held accountable, they are, by definition, acting unaccountably.
You seemed to disagree, and be trying to make a distinction where no practical difference can be found. You also seem to agree that they haven't been held accountable, which makes this apparent distinction even less coherent! This kind of just comes across as contrarian, or perhaps sophistry to avoid agreeing with an apparent opponent?
Are you arguing that only Republicans have controlled Congress singe Bush Jr was in office? Or that Congress held primary decision making authority behind the number of executive orders signed by presidents since then?
> Are you arguing that only Republicans have controlled Congress singe Bush Jr was in office?
Republicans have been able to stop congress from doing anything they didn't like since... 2010.
They can't even get their shit together to pass legislature when they control congress, but they've always been able to prevent it from passing legislature, or exercising oversight. Just like they are doing right now.
No and no. I'm referring to Gingrich's attitude of never crossing the aisle leading to Congressional gridlock. And how a functioning Congress could have easily passed laws nullifying most executive orders (especially the ones grabbing extra power). It was precisely the power vacuum of Congress that enabled the strong executive.
Anyone in congress can cross the aisle though, the hesitation to do so isn't unique.
I do agree though that inept congresses has allowed the executive branch to act so powerfully. My only caveat is that congress first had to give those powers to the executive such that they could eventually be abused. Earlier congresses didn't have to choose to empower the executive branch with so much authority.
> For another example, take the frequent neofascist argument that the federal agencies are "unaccountable" without being under the direct command of the President
It’s not “neofascist” lol, it’s just what the constitution says. The first sentence of article II: “ The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”
It’s not Congress’s job to hold executive branch employees accountable any more than it’s Congress’s job to hold judicial law clerks in the courts accountable. It’s the President’s job, in whom the executive power is vested.
That’s also reflected in the appointments clause. Anyone with discretionary authority must be either appointed by the president, or report to someone who is: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf. The whole point is to make the executive branch highly responsive to Presidenfial elections.
Congress is supposed to hold both employees and departments accountable. Employees are held accountable via the advise and consent power so that the leadership of departments isn't beholden to the executive. Departments are held accountable by the budget process, don't do a good job, don't get appropriations. The executive power is merely administrative and logistical.
The executive power, as being laid out in the Constitution. Not all executive power. This is plainly clear by appointments requiring approval of the Senate. If the "executive branch" were meant to be a singular top-down command structure, then such approval (or ability to impeach) would not be required. This push for an authoritarian command structure is one pillar of what makes the term "fascist" appropriate.
I was not talking about the accountability of individual employees according to the law. The accountability I was talking about was the mandate for an agency. That was set by Congress when they created the agency, and can thus be clarified or changed by Congress at any time.
“The executive power” means “all the executive power,” in the same way “the judicial power” in Article III means “all the judicial power.” Or do you think the other branches can properly exercise some judicial power? Advice-and-consent isn’t an exercise of executive power, it’s a check on executive power, just like impeachment.
Sure, Congress can change or clarify the mandate of an agency, and the President must go along with that. But what we’re talking about with Trump is accountability for individual employees and the discretionary conduct of executive branch employees.
For example, Congress has appropriated $1.7 billion for USAID operations, “for purposes of the carrying out the 1961 foreign development act” (paraphrasing). I agree the executive must ultimately spend that money within the broad mandate of the appropriation. But do you spend that money on DEI in Serbia or pro-natalism in South Korea? Clearly the President should be able to decide that.
>Trump is continuing a trend that has been going on since at least Bush Jr. Presidents for a couple decades now have been moving more power into the executive branch.
Are you familiar with the constitution? It describes which powers belong to the executive and which don't.
The US is a strong federative country. Individual states are almost literally _states_ (as in "country") and have a lot of power. They can impose their own carbon taxes, net neutrality rules, fund research, etc.
And more importantly, their local democracy is going strong.
Take a look at the EPA "exception" that California has needed in order to impose more stringent fuel efficiency standards for automobiles.
Many forms of commerce or communication that are relevant across state lines (net neutrality rules, etc.) are considered a federal prerogative and states have limited ability to control these.
Yes, states could do more to fund research--and hopefully they will--but no state has the same level of tax rate as the federal government, and while the NSF budget is "noise" in the federal budget ($10B/$1.7T discretionary) it would be quite a big outlay for most states, even for California it would represent 3%+ of the total state budget to reproduce.
Though, now that I look at that number, maybe it's actually an opportunity for CA...
> Take a look at the EPA "exception" that California has needed in order to impose more stringent fuel efficiency standards for automobiles.
Yet, WA now has a carbon tax for companies operating within its borders. And it was found constitutional by the SCOTUS.
> Many forms of commerce or communication that are relevant across state lines (net neutrality rules, etc.) are considered a federal prerogative and states have limited ability to control these.
The interstate agreements are allowed as long as they don't infringe on the sovereign Federal power.
And there are plenty of workarounds. For example, CA has these ridiculous agricultural inspection stations on freeways. They are legal because they don't technically deny you the freedom of movement, declining to submit to an inspection simply revokes your driving privilege in CA.
States need a military to enforce their independence, but almost none have one of note. The National Guard is under the executive branch and state guards tend to be tiny (e.g. just 900 enlisted for CA).
CA spends around $11B on the University of California system. The NIH budget is $47B. I haven't done the math, but I would hazard that the total amount of money spent on science by the Federal and the individual state authorities would be comparable.
It's just that historically the Federal government was leading with the fundamental research, but if push comes to shove, states can start spinning up replacement programs.
I foresee three big challenges to funding science at the state level.
Shifting to state-level funding would require states to independently raise new taxes. Each state would have to work within the constraints of its state level constitution for levying that tax. Research would no longer be pork. This seems politically difficult.
States would have to either coordinate on which grants to fund or accept a siloed, fragmented system. That seems inefficient.
Institutes at lower-income states would not be subsidized by higher-income states and fail. That seems wasteful.
> Each state would have to work within the constraints of its state level constitution for levying that tax.
Interstate compacts exist. For example, states can make an agreement that a company can receive grant funds only if it's incorporated in a state that spends a certain percentage of the budget on scientific research.
San-Francisco (in a ham-fisted way) tried to do something similar, by prohibiting city-sponsored contracts with companies in states that restrict abortion.
California spends $4.7B in general fund revenue on the UC system. Tuition is a bit more than that, but it’s paid by students for their personal benefit so you can’t just repurpose it because some billionaires want tax cuts.
That covers everything from paving roads and mowing grass to paying for their pension system and monitoring for wildfires, so the proportional increase for research funding would be even larger than it sounds because federal funding has been the backbone for that since WWII.
While you’d be looking at a significant increase in tax demand for them it’d be much worse for almost everyone else because California is also the richest state in the country, almost twice as rich as the second (Texas). There’s no way that isn’t a bloodbath for American science.
And yet states aren't allowed to form alliances with other states according to Article 1 section 10. Sure, states might be able to fund research, but most states on their own aren't going to be able to afford to do this effectively - but if several states could band together to, say, keep funding climate science that might help keep us on track and keep scientists employed until better times come back. But they can't do that.
> And yet states aren't allowed to form alliances with other states
That's not quite correct. The judicial practice in the US is that the intestate compacts (agreements) require Congressional authorization only if they infringe on the sovereign Federal powers.
One good example for the 2nd Amendment lovers: states are free to make reciprocal agreements with other states for concealed carry permits. It doesn't require any authorization from the Congress.
Another example are the laws for taxation of multi-state corporations that the neighboring states can negotiate together.
Except that the states have no power because an unchecked executive branch can just claim that it had authority and the states have no recourse to resist.
Don't get so depressed. The Executive branch in the US does not have a lot of power when it comes to influencing the states.
For example, Trump can't actually force states to change their school athlete programs. It doesn't have any power over individual states (or schools). All his DoE can do, is to threaten to withhold funding. And even that is being contested because the Congress has not authorized it.
However, if he does manage to withdraw the funding, that's just 6% of total spending on schools in CA ( https://lao.ca.gov/Education/EdBudget/Details/900 ) and 8% in NY. The states will just shrug and go on.
The discretionary part of the US Federal budget is not large, on the scale of the country.
Are states exactly flush with cash to plug even small gaps in school budgets?
You mentioned CA which is rebuilding from massive fires, can they afford that?
What about Arizona, 2021 to 2022 19% of their schools budget was federal funding.
What happens if there is a natural disaster, Trump can withhold funds to force changes. Can a state turn down that level of assistance? They would have to prioritize recovery I assume and just accept the change.
>Don't get so depressed. The Executive branch in the US does not have a lot of power when it comes to influencing the states.
Exactly. Look at how Hungary's Orban regime is slowly choking the last stronghold of any kind of political opposition, Budapest. It's a war of attrition.
> What happens if there is a natural disaster, Trump can withhold funds to force changes. Can a state turn down that level of assistance? They would have to prioritize recovery I assume and just accept the change.
But many sides can play this game once the can of worms is open.
The thing is, then the next Democratic president (or a Democratic House/Senate) happens and yet another hurricane flattens a part of Florida. What do you think the Florida delegation in the Congress will do when faced with a prospect of not getting help?
> Money is power
Indeed. And the Blue States have way more money than most of the Red states.
1) The fact that the President embodies the executive branch is just what Article II says: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” The same people who say that’s “just a theory” also think that “emanations from penumbras” is constitutional law. They’re not serious people.
2) Trump hasn’t seized the spending power. Congress was the one that delegated spending power to the executive branch by appropriating multi-billion line items and directing the executive branch to spend the money with only the vaguest instructions. Live by the delegation sword die by the delegation sword.
1) While Article II says....it also depends on a checks and balance system with the other two branches of government. We've already seen where the congressional branch is laying down for the executive, and we've also seen where the judicial branch has granted immunity essentially giving carte blanche to the executive. Without equal branches providing checks and balances, you've just ceded power the Constitution requires. Any of the lower courts trying to hold on to any semblance of checks and balance will eventually be reversed once it reaches SCOTUS.
The system has specific, well-defined checks and balances. For example, Congress can limit the executive’s control over spending by enacting specific appropriations bills with concrete line items. But it hasn’t done so for decades. It has done things like appropriate single $1.7 billion line items for USAID, leaving it to the executive’s discretion how to spend it with only the vaguest guidelines. Congress having done that, it’s not for say the courts to “check” that by insisting that the executive can’t exercise all the discretion Congress provided it.
And your point about immunity is misinformed. The Supreme Court held that the President has immunity for official acts. This is a no-brainer. You can’t sue Congressmen for their official acts either, or judges.
If the President didn’t have immunity, Georgia prosecutors would be able to indict and convict Joe Biden in some red county in connection with the murder of Laken Riley, on the theory that Biden recklessly or negligently opened the border leading to her death.
> And your point about immunity is misinformed. The Supreme Court held that the President has immunity for official acts.
We'll have to agree to disagree here. You'll never convince me that a phone call from a candidate trying to convince someone to "find" extra votes is an official act of office. Nor is assembling a league of fake electors because the official ones will not bend the knee
Please read the Supreme Court’s decision. It didn’t say either of those actions was protected official acts. The Supreme Court remanded to the district out to figure out which were official acts and which were not: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
This was entirely Jack Smith’s bad lawyering. He chose to write an indictment that mixed together the acts you mention along with things like Trump’s instructions to DOJ officials.
Neither point is accurate. The executive power doesn't include the ability to create a fake department (DOGE), with a fake head (Elon Musk), lie that he isnt running it in court, and then run roughshod over the regulations and laws congress passed around employment regulations.
You know what the constitution does require, advise and consent. Not a single thing elon musk is doing is legal and yet their are seizing the power to remake departments created and funded by congress. If you want to eliminate USAID or any other department have CONGRESS pass a law to make the change, anything else is a constitutional seizure of power.
The executive power doesn't include a concept such as impoundment, yet the trump administration seized $80mil of FEMA funds from the the city of new york bank account.
Bearing in mind that this administration won the election and a lot of what they are doing is more-or-less what they campaigned on, I'm not sure democracy is at risk.
One can pick around the details, but for example with regard to the firings, voters clearly approved of the concept of smaller, cheaper government. Which is basically what's happening.
This is essentially democracy in action. Yes, the voters may come to regret their vote, yes they likely didn't understand what they were voting for, but that's the flaw in democracy we're aware of.
Is this what everyone wants? Clearly not. But democracy is about majority rule, not consensus.
When an election is canceled then one can talk about democracy dying.
But right now, Americans are just getting what the majority voted for. They may not necessarily like it, but they voted for it. And the lack of reaction by Republicans in congress suggests that they feel the best way to be reelected is to go along with it.
Like if or not, the "democracy" part is working well.
This is based on a too literal interpretation of democracy.
Democracy had a bad reputation in the ancient world, because unconstrained majority decisions often led to terrible outcomes. In the modern world, democracy usually means liberal democracy, which includes things like the rule of law and constitutional protections. As a rough approximation, a constitution exists to prevent the government from doing what the voters want.
A constitution in itself a worthless document, and the checks and balances have no power. The power comes from conventions. Conventions on how the constitution should be interpreted and how the people in power should act within the constitutional framework. If too many people ignore the conventions and interpret the laws and regulations literally to their advantage, democracy will die. It died in the Roman Republic, and it has died in many modern republics. Plenty of authoritarian states maintain nominally democratic institutions. And many of them became like that in a way that was at least nominally legal.
Ultimately the checks and balances are also elected. Directly in the case of congress, indirectly in the case of the judiciary. (Mitch McConnell obstructed merrick garland and was rewarded for it.)
Of course unrestrained majority decisions lead to terrible outcomes. This is well understood, and has been demonstrated over and over recently (think Brexit.)
Democracy is objectively a flawed system for this reason. It has never promised to deliver the best, or even good, government. It is what it is.
I agree, this is a literal interpretation of democracy. It is "the will of the people". I'm not sure that anything else could still be even called a democracy.
> This is well understood, and has been demonstrated over and over recently (think Brexit.)
That is a matter of opinion. Most of what is terrible about Brexit is "the media hate it". Economic outcomes have been in line with comparable EU countries so the promised "project fear" disaster (e.g. the Treasury prediction of a collapse of the economy in the wake of a vote for Brexit - not even on implementation) did not happen.
One thing Americans don't seem to realize is that the current constitution needs to be rewritten once we get out of this mess. One of the consequences of dictatorships is that they deform the constitution for their purposes. It seems that republicans have done enough to deform the system in an irreparable way.
* Drop the electoral collage
* Proportional and/or preferential voting
* Term limits/retirement ages
* An independent electoral organisation with real teeth to prevent gerrymandering (and verify the election)
* Free and easy voter IDs (if ID are ever required)
* All election days are public holidays, with requirements to allow workers on the day to vote
* Compulsory voting (works in AU)
* Minimum number of polling booths per X people
* Absentee voting
* Changing to a parliamentary system where the president is a figurehead
Agree with many of these. But changing to a parliamentary system would make the GOP even stronger: they won the House popular vote in 8 of the last 13 elections, including comfortably both in 2000 and 2016.
But there is no such thing as an “independent electoral organization.” The Framers never credited the idea of an “independent” body that could be trusted to be somehow “above politics.” That’s why the constitutional government is like a game of rock paper scissors. Everything can be checked by everything else.
But the power Musk holds isn’t the result of him being rich, it’s because he has a populist cult of personality. The candidate who spent twice the money lost the election. Musk has power because he got on stage with Trump in Pennsylvania promising to fire all the federal workers.
The thing is, the current situation is "more control by credentialed elites". Way more than at any point since at least WWII. It’s just that the elites are oligarchs who kneeled before Trump. He is the only one giving credentials.
Musk isn’t a credentialed elite—someone who holds power by virtue of attaining credentials to run an organization or institution with regulatory power. Musk holds power by virtue of having a populist cult of personality.
The credentialed elites are the Ivy League graduates who go work for government and do things like have the SBA make loans to minorities that white people aren’t eligible for: https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/court-rules-biden-admin-di.... They’re the ones who see, for example, immigration and affirmative action as moral causes—even though most voters oppose both—and have injected those ideas into all our government programs, corporate HR, etc.
What happened is that a plurality of voters decided that they’d rather have billionaire industrialists in charge than the Ivy League pencil pushers.
Not sure how a "rewrite" would even work. Our current constitution does not have any provisions for discarding it and starting over. The amendment process requires too many states to agree for any sweeping changes. (We couldn't even get enough states to pass something as simple and seemingly uncontroversial as the equal rights amendment before it expired.)
And I think this is -- at least for now -- actually a good thing. Because if we could rewrite the constitution, I suspect it would be rewritten by the same kind of people who wrote the Project 2025 playbook.
Sarcasm aside, I'm seeing a lot of wackiness on both sides of the political spectrum lately. The Constitution is fine and provides provisions for changing it via amendments. You guys aren't involved in the political process at all, I caucused and was a delegate so I can tell you the system is fine and working as intended. Don't complain about it if you aren't even involved in the process. That just makes you look silly.
> This is based on a too literal interpretation of democracy.
Attempting to run a democracy in a non-literal way seems like a recipe for disaster.
That seems to imply that citizens get to cast a vote and have their voice heard...unless those in charge decide the citizens don't know what is best for them.
As a country we picked Trump. For better or worse we made that bed and we now have to lie in it.
Folks on the left would do well to remember that the same unelected bureaucracy that declared “resistance” to Trump would destroy an AOC or Sanders presidency too. Ultimately, it’s a good thing if electing the President can effectuate drastic changes in the executive branch, because that’s the only real lever voters have for affecting the largest and these days most powerful branch of government.
To the contrary, in a modern, diverse country, it’s not tenable for the same people to keep running the government in the same way regardless of who wins elections. That was okay when we had a more homogenous, slower-changing country with widely shared values. That’s untenable today.
The "deep state" is just a scapegoat for stuff people don’t like or understand. It’s a way to dodge real issues. There’s no secret conspiracy—just a lot of people doing their jobs in a messy system.
The "deep state" is also used to refer to the relatively small number of unelected people who make some of the most impactful decisions on society with no voter input.
I don't know that I've ever actually heard someone talk about the "deep state" to refer to career bureaucrats just doing their jobs in large government orgs / a messy system.
I don't see how your reply is related to my comment.
I was not defining democracy. I was describing the common real-world usage of the term, which has a more specific meaning than simple majority rule. It is commonly used as a shorthand for "liberal democracy". Some Americans use "republic" for the same concept, but that's misleading in other ways. Partly because some countries that are commonly understood to be liberal democracies are constitutional monarchies. And partly because some actual republics (such as North Korea or the member states of the former USSR) do not match the concept particularly well.
I was also not talking about any specific constitution, but constitutions in general. They all come with implicit and explicit assumptions that must hold, or the system will not work as intended. If some entities are supposed to function as checks and balances to each other, they are expected to remain independent. If they choose to collude instead, nobody is capable of stopping them if they decide to twist the constitution beyond recognition or outright break it.
I said that a constitution on its own is worthless. That means a constitution cannot enforce itself. There must be some people who are capable and willing to enforce it. But if they are capable of enforcing the constitution, they are also capable of breaking it. Which means there must be other people capable and willing to act as checks and balances. And so on. The system may work as long as those people act within the expectations, complying with both the spirit and the letter of the constitution. But if they reject the expectations and start looking for loopholes to take advantage of, they may find some. If that becomes too common, the constitution becomes worthless, because the people who are supposed to enforce it no longer believe in it.
I think he took issue with your framing that democracy is interpreted. Judges don't interpret "democracy", that would be silly. Judges interpret the law.
I do agree with the general gist of the point you are making however. The Constitution itself holds no special power, it is the State's monopoly on violence that does.
If you vote, but your votes don't matter, you aren't a democracy. You are a democracy when your votes meaningfully influence policy. In that sense, we aren't even a democracy right now.
It's worth considering that Russia has elections too. They aren't meaningful for many reasons. Real opposition candidates might be assassinated, or a candidate might be run with the same name to confuse voters, etc.
Gerrymandering and unlimited campaign contributions are prime example's of how "It's all about how he comes to power" is correct, but your conclusion is flawed.
"In the South Seas there is a Cargo Cult of people. During the war they
saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same
thing to happen now. So they’ve arranged to make things like runways,
to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a
man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and
bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas—he’s the controller—and they
wait for the airplanes to land. They’re doing everything right. The
form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it
doesn’t work. No airplanes land. So I call these things Cargo Cult
Science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of
scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential,
because the planes don’t land."
America follows the apparent precepts and forms of democracy, but we are missing something essential because votes don't influence policy.
There is much more to the idea of democracy than voting.
The federal executive also doesn't set budgets, or choose which congressionally mandated departments will be open today, yet it's 2025 and it is doing exactly that. And back in 2020, it was conspiring to send fake electors to cast votes for itself, and to fix vote counts in Georgia. (Which you seem to think is also not a responsibility of the federal government, but the courts have called it an official, unprosecutable act, so here we are.)
Why do you think that a government that is not bound by the need to follow the law, and has already demonstrated malicious intent will... Actually follow the law?
I mean, to the degree in which I expect there to be an election in 2 years, and 4 years, I suppose that counts as optimism.
I've not seen any indication that elections themselves are under threat. Given that elections would happen at state level anyway (and absent disbandment of congress) those elections would elect senators and representatives. Which in turn have the power to remove a president.
So yes, I see nothing to suggest that elections themselves are at risk.
They've fired the people responsible for combating foreign interference operations (CISA), have positioned the FBI and DOJ to investigate political adversaries, and have set up the military to follow unlawful orders. Buckle up. I will be surprised if we have free and fair elections, if we have them at all.
If all but the most bubbled media have been brought to heel by billionaire owners or threats and the ordinary voters, the ones who sat out the last election or thought it was about the price of eggs, are exposed only to authoritarian-friendly propaganda, I don't have a lot of hope for the next elections.
> voters clearly approved of the concept of smaller, cheaper government. Which is basically what's happening.
Except that this is completely false. These haphazard cuts are a miniscule portion of the federal budget, even assuming they don't incur a whole bunch of second and third order costs. The exact same administration doing those is going to burn literal orders of magnitude more money on tax cuts for billionaires, border security theater, and other corrupt nonsense. Federal finances were in bad shape a year ago and are going to be absolutely horrid a few years from now.
Oh, I agree, finances are going to be poor. But these departments cost a lot more than salaries, so firing everyone does save real coin.
And it plays very well with an electorate who wants to see "big changes". That thr changes will hurt them is the point missed by most.
Killing federal departments also plays well with those encumbered by red tape. If there's no CFB there's no one getting in my way to treat customers badly.
USaid buys (bought) a lot of food from US farmers , so in effect that subsidy is going away (without the bad press). The money "going to Ukraine" was being spent at US munition suppliers, so really, it'll hurt those suppliers.
> they are doing is more-or-less what they campaigned on,
He campaigned on bringing prices down and exacting revenge. So far failing on the former and going strong on the latter.
This administration has made it clear that they think that the current President should have the power of a king, and the reign to match. We're in uncharted waters and there's rocks ahead.
I mostly agree. Trump is behaving in a way that's consistent with his prior rhetoric.
Where I disagree is that there may have been an expectation that the systems outside of "The President" would have stood up for themselves more, offered more resistance and slowed him down more. The slow-moving of government is (was though to be) it's own protection to some extent.
I'm not sure what evidence suggests that Republicans in congress would grow a spine to resist this. Conversely the evidence since 2016 suggests they actively applaud it.
The voters have voted out any congress people who resisted, sending a clear message that they want this path.
This may not be the pretty side of democracy, but it is democracy.
My point above (which I see is being downvoted) is not thst I see this as "good" , but rather that I see it as democratic. Everything going on is literally because the people voted for it. The stacking of the Supreme Court, the obstructionist behavior in congress, the tolerance for (Trump) crimes- this has all been rewarded, not penalized by voters.
If democracy is the will of the people , then what you see seeing is the power of that will.
Except it’s not really democracy. You have gerrymandered districts. You elect a leader not by who gets the most votes, but who wins a system that was designed for the benefit of white slave owners.
And of course, who really believes the election results when you have Trump saying that Musk rigged some voting machines in his favor.
Face it, the US no longer creates its government from the collective will of its citizens. They’ve replaced politicians with corporate backers for the actual corporations themselves.
Ugh, please stop calling this a "mandate". You don't have a mandate when you weren't even able to secure 50% of the total votes, and your main opponent only trailed you by a percentage point and a half.
I think if Biden had decided up-front that he wouldn't seek re-election, and the Democrats had been able to field a real primary, Trump may not have won. Instead we had an old man making blunder after blunder during his campaign, followed by a not-all-that-popular replacement that no one selected through the primary process, who only had a few short months to put a campaign together. Frankly I think it's impressive Harris did as well as she did.
Trump specifically disavowed Project 2025 when he ran and now is embracing it. He never said he was going to put an unelected billionaire in charge and disregard the Constitution.
> And the lack of reaction by Republicans in congress suggests that they feel the best way to be reelected is to go along with it.
They are worried about getting primaried and their primary opponent being financed by Musk.
He disavowed project 25, but it was written by all his inner circle, and he hired them into govt. So, if the voter believed him, well duh.
Musk was a big part of the inner circle before the election. His track record is well known.
In other words everything that is happening was predictable and predicted. Voters knew what they were voting for. Those who are surprised really weren't paying any attention.
> everything that is happening was predictable and predicted. Voters knew what they were voting for. Those who are surprised really weren't paying any attention.
The voters were kept away from these predictions. They were too spicy for mainstream media, not mainly because the media are in Trump's pocket (except Fox, OANN -- all the explicit propaganda outfits), but because people shoot the messenger when the messenger delivers bad news. They like hear about bad news afflicting other people. If it afflicts them, if it triggers their anxiety, they think, "You've made me feel bad. This is unpleasant. I'm going to go look at pictures of puppies and kittens."
Voters could not have known that Trump would make a concerted effort to do anything unconstitutional. This is nothing like he did his first term or any other Republican has ever done.
He is going after departments that are conservative darlings like the Defense department. I can’t remember any serious person saying we need to cut spending and fire people at the FAA.
If he had thought that voters wanted Project 2025, why would he disavow it during the campaign?
> Voters could not have known that Trump would make a concerted effort to do anything unconstitutional
Trump literally said that he would be a dictator on day one. I heard tons of interviews with Republicans saying they'd be ok with Trump acting like a dictator.
Republican voters knew Trump would do unconstitutional things, and they liked it.
Wasn't Doge floated before the election, with Trump embracing the idea?
Regardless, Trump has made a living as a (slimy) business man. No one should have heard his campaign speeches and taken them at face value.
He didn't even have to be lying at the time, he could have simply changed his mind. The man seems to be driven only by two motivations: his family and making deals. The first one is often seen as admirable or honorable, the second means you'll do whatever it takes to negotiate a situation where you're better off by whatever metrics matter to you (usually money and status).
Family is an interesting one, given five kids across three marriages, so the 'thought' is admirable and honourable, but he's unable to live up to it - which kind of educates us as to his ability to live up to his word, or his ability to deal with difficult situations calmly and rationally.
And having Musk alongside him entirely destroys the family angle (media-prop children aside).
That really depends on your view what the "right" setup for a family is. Historically that's a husband and wife with their kids, but that isn't the only approach by far.
My point there was only that he does seem to actually care about and love his family, especially (maybe mostly?) his kids.
Trump specifically ran saying he didn't agree with many of these plans.
His actions are consistent with cheaper federal government but not smaller federal government. Just a centralized executive government that does what he says.
The method is simple: say what you need to to get approval, do what you always wanted to do after you get it.
See also Kennedy walking back his anti-vaccine positions to get crucial votes out of Republican senators in committee and then promptly revealing he is still anti-vax.
So when he makes comments about at third term and claiming even more power... how consistent do you think that is with smaller federal government or continuing democracy?
Trump ran on saying whatever to whomever. his intentions though were obvious. He ran on cutting spending by 2 trillion. Where did people think this was going to come from? He ran on ending red tape. He ran on reducing regulation.
These days folk getting approved by the senate just have to show up. No one believes RFK when he says he's changed his mind on vax. I mean, these guys are lackeys, not stupid.
Democracy is about letting people who have no understanding, who pay minimal attention, who are easily led by media and populism, choose who should be in charge.
It is working as designed.
Do we need a better system? I'd argue yes. But all the others are worse.
If the population votes him a 3rd term, If they vote for congress who supports that- that is democracy. The people will get what they vote for.
We are literally seeing what "govt by the people" looks like. This is not democracy dying. It's democracy showing its flaws.
I'm not happy with the situation, but I agree with almost all of what you've said.
> Do we need a better system? I'd argue yes. But all the others are worse
I think there's a lot of room for improvement here. Eliminate the senate. Dramatically expand the house. Eliminate the electoral college. Sane district boundaries. Etc.
Perhaps the Democrats should consider letting their voters choose the candidate for once instead of anointing it. Nobody wanted Clinton except the DNC establishment, and then they lied about Biden until he was forced aside for Kamala at the behest of insiders.
> Perhaps the Democrats should consider letting their voters choose the candidate
Maybe Biden didn't want to go and it took time and pressure. They couldn't put together a primary by the time he did.
Did they lie? Probably. If Biden didn't want to go saying "the president is senile" would have helped Trump win.
Either way it doesn't matter. Trump was the candidate who lied (and still is lying) about widespread election fraud, not to mention tons of other lies that have become so numerous I'm numb to them.
Voters had a choice, Trump or Harris. Which is better (or which is the least worst option)
How would you "skip" an election, though? Every single blue state and swing state will hold elections in 2026 and 2028. The federal government has no say in that.
If the red states don't feel like having elections, then I guess their legislatures will be directly appointing electors to send to the electoral college. Outcome will be the same, more or less, as if they held elections.
Don’t care about state elections as that’s not the point. If someone that was currently in the last term of their Constitutionally limited position decided some sort of martial law that delayed/postponed/canceled an election that would replace them using their SCOTUS provided blanket immunity for official acts while the congressional branch refuse to impeach/convict, then there would not be an election. Anything the states did wouldn’t matter as the complicit congress would just choose to not recognize anything the states did.
It might seem like a bizarre thing to say about the USofA, but we were not far from not certifying the previous election with an opposition led congress.
This is democracy! You can say it’s a bad idea or whatever. But Trump had Musk on stage promising to do this then we elected him. That’s democracy. Tyranny of the majority.