[Kina]

Whether or not you agree with how US laws are drafted, this administration has no logical foundation for anything it does which is a massively different and worse problem by orders of magnitude.

This administration runs on whims. This is horrifying and there is real harm in this we have yet to see the full repercussions of.

[_heimdall]

This administration has been slapped back by the courts more then I would have expected though. If we had fewer laws granting pretty broad powers to the executive branch I have to assume more of the administration's actions would be stopped.

[throwawayqqq11]

You are not constructive when you only want to strap gov. powers. The resulting void is ripe for the private sector to capture. To counter this, you need capable public institutions, so a constructive approach would mean, more precise regulations with balanced liberties and bureaucratic aid, not plain less of it. (IMO, this general rejection without a propper problem description nor solution is a product of corporate propaganda to achieve this exact void.)

[_heimdall]

Its worth noting that I'm specifically talking about federal powers in the US here. I have a lower bar for state and local governments. The whole point of that system is to allow states to try different approaches and policies, if enough states agree on similar approaches maybe it can be pulled up to the federal level.

In the case of the Trump administration, this thread didn't have specific policies people took issue with but I'd say most likely candidates roll back to issues that I wouldn't want to see the federal government responsible for. Immigration is probably an outlier, though that's a whole can of worms and I disagree with most immigration restrictions in part because of the interplay between immigration and entitlement programs.

[Kina]

> this thread didn’t have specific policies people took issue with

Can you give me a consistent principal that that the government of the day is doing outside of flopping around screaming America First while shooting itself in the foot while harassing citizens and critics it deems undesirable? Meanwhile Trump preens about like a pig prancing in front of a mirror and everyone is too weak to publicly acknowledge the farce we have all helped facilitate.

- The immigration policy is nonsensical, incoherent and basically driven by, “I don’t like others”. If it were consistent we would have proper review processes. A respected Somali FIFA referee would not be banned from the US for reasons that apparently cannot be disclosed.

- The AI policy is just based on whatever exec has the right person’s ear as demonstrated by the export controls being enforced on Anthropic’s recent models entirely due to Andy Jassy talking to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.

- Onshoring jobs has not moved in any meaningful manner, there is no evidence of this outside of Trump screaming about unproductive and illegal tariffs which he continues to try and argue are not the consumer tax that they are.

- Deconstructing science and practical field work has caused a humanitarian and supply chain disaster. Pest prevention programs are in chaotic states, diseases that the US helped limit worldwide are on the rise, and we have destabilized multiple regions where we used to provide food security which also helped prop up American agriculture.

- There is no crypto policy in the United States. Crypto businesses have spent money trying to stop this. What does crypto actually facilitate? The central bank wasn't created just to annoy people or impede their ability to profit. Should we go back to JP Morgan locking bankers in his personal library and berating them until they agreed to start lending money again?

[_heimdall]

Well I'm definitely not one to justify what the current administration is doing, maybe someone else coming by could try to help make that case.

I largely agree with your criticisms of them. Where I expect we differ is that I would rather remove powers currently granted to them rather than see further federal powers created.

For example, I don't want to see a crypto policy in the US and I'm not aware of what problem it would be solving. If people want to gamble on crypto that's their choice. If they get taken by rug pulls and scams, well that is the result of decisions they made. What I don't want is an ethos expecting the government to know what is best for everyone and force rules upon us because they believe we won't make good decisions and can't or won't be responsible for the outcomes.

Edit: I missed the very end of your comment. No, I don't think we should empower banks to imprison individuals based on unpaid debts. That's already covered though, it isn't legal for a corporation or and individual to imprison a person. Why would we be reverting to such a world?

[Kina]

It just means that the entire system has not been captured by insane people that there is still some pushback.

Anyone who believes in the Unitary Executive Theory likely believes that the President wears imperial robes. The idea that the President should have unchecked power over the executive branch is insane and mocks the whole idea of coequal branches of government or checks and balances.

You can argue for reform, but nothing currently going on is reform. It is entirely running on fumes. The recent AI executive order is representative of this as is the constantly shifting policy driven by whoever has Trump’s favor at any point in time. There's nothing grounding any recent policy change of the United States.

[_heimdall]

I agree with you mostly, but that's beside my point. Some of the things the administration is doing fall under existing executive powers granted by congress, either directly or in enough gray area that it would require court challenges. Removing laws granting those powers should lead to either the administration avoiding the attempt if they know they'll lose in court or courts having a very simple case to deem said actions illegal.

[AnthonyMouse]

The lack of a logical foundation isn't the novelty. The whole system has run on whims and backfilled reasoning for a long time. That's the problem.

If it had always been the rule of law until now then we would have an apparatus set up to impose checks and balances and accountability on government officials, but because those things have so atrophied from continuous contempt and neglect, no one knows how to demonstrate that what Trump is doing is wrong without also conceding that half of what the government has been doing for decades is wrong. But they also don't want to stop doing those things and therefore have rather a dilemma.

Of course, that's assuming you actually demand logical consistency. If you don't care about that you can do whatever you want -- which is kind of the trouble.

[_heimdall]

While I agree as implemented today our system of checks and balances is faltering, those systems do exist. Separation of powers and our three branch system was designed precisely to try and force checks on power.

It may be failing, but the problem isn't that those systems weren't put in place.

[AnthonyMouse]

In significant part it's because those checks were removed.

Laws are supposed to come from Congress, but by volume most rules the public is subject to now come from unelected administrative agencies in the executive branch. That's a clear violation of the separation of powers.

Members of the US Senate, which laws are supposed to have to pass through, which confirm federal judges, and which do the impeachment trials, were originally appointed by the state legislatures, i.e. represented the states, until they were changed to be directly elected. The public's direct representatives were intended to be the House -- and House districts were intended to be small, until the number of seats was capped. So now the states have no representation in the federal government, and neither House districts nor state-wide Senate seats have small enough constituencies for individuals to be meaningfully heard by their representatives.

Juries have the right to do jury nullification and it's one of the most powerful tools against bad laws. If you're on a jury and you think that it's the law which is wrong rather than the defendant's actions, you are not required to convict them. But defendants are essentially prohibited from telling juries that, so it almost never happens. Likewise, the list of procedural safeguards that were meant to protect people against abusive government prosecutions have been eroded to such an extent in the name of expedient mass incarceration that the freedom of any given person is down to the inclination of the government to charge them with something. Which in turn allows the government to govern through threats and demand things they have no right to demand, since they now have the ability to charge anyone with something else if they don't do whatever the government wants, regardless of whether the law requires them to do what they're being pressured to do, or even whether it's constitutionally permissible to make someone do that.

This is all very bad but it's also not new. And it's what enables a tyrant when one comes, which is why it has needed to be fixed for some time now. But the best time to bolster checks and balances is before you remove them and the second best time is very soon.