Election predictions

Clinton

9 (69.2%)

Trump

4 (30.8%)

Hung college

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 13

[N80]

Executive orders are an issue that needs constant attention regardless of the party. Roosevelt abused his office greatly and was our first socialist. He was as close to king as we've come so far.

The bigger issue is legislation through policy. We are a country encumbered in bureaucratic policies from all the various "departments" that presidents have created over the years. Bush was bad. Obama much worse. These policies get put in place with the weight of law but do not arise out of the legislative process. I despise Trump but am hopeful that he will begin to address this huge problem that leads to an essential oligarchy that works around actual legislation. These departments are hard to get rid of..............but very easy to de-fund. When they are defunded they shrivel. Which is what they need to do, particularly the EPA and CMS.

[jeremyrh]

particularly the EPA and CMS.

Pfft...

[Otto Phocus]

These policies get put in place with the weight of law but do not arise out of the legislative process.

Not quite accurate.  All regulations in the CFR have to have legislative links back to laws in the US Code. That linkage established the legal legitimacy of the regulation. The same applies to Executive Orders although that linkage is not always published in the EO.  In any case, both regulations (CFR) and Executive Orders are subject to both legislative and judicial review.

[N80]

Not quite accurate.  All regulations in the CFR have to have legislative links back to laws in the US Code. That linkage established the legal legitimacy of the regulation. The same applies to Executive Orders although that linkage is not always published in the EO.  In any case, both regulations (CFR) and Executive Orders are subject to both legislative and judicial review.

Agreed. But you know as well as I do that the link to actual legislation is often tenuous (to say the least) and that legislative review is nearly non-existent and judicial review is tedious and both are subject to partisanship. This, to me, is not a partisan issue. Both parties are guilty, the process lies outside of the intended checks and balances and represents a quicker, easier and more direct way to impose political power than the standard legislative process. It also relies on level upon level of bureaucratic baggage to resist change and to prevent challenge by those affected by it. It is not good for the nation, it is not good for freedom. It establishes, and has imposed on this nation for decades, a bureaucratic oligarchy. I don't care which party is in control, this process is insidious and harmful. Possibly the worst effect is that you develop a citizenry that is so beat down by bureaucracy and lack of real representation that they come to disrespect the law. They know said policy is morally and ethically wrong but they are helpless to do anything about it and so are their representatives. They then consider it non-binding for them and find ways to circumvent it. In Italy this is a national past time.

[Alan Klein]

Frankly I blame the Congress and their cowardice.  It's easier for them to let the President take a hit for decisions.  Their thinking is why stick their own necks out.  So they have been letting him make the decisions which has increased Presidential power over time to the point he can pretty much declare war without the congress.  This is not what the constitution allows.  The framers wanted a very weak President with very limited authority.  They wanted laws written mostly in the various States and most things left to the People.  But we also have allowed ourselves to be cowed into submission with our desires for handouts.  So we give up so many of our personal freedoms and give all this power to morons in the government who get us into wars, spend our money, break the bank, and really could care less for us as long as they get re-elected.  In the end, it's our own fault because we're willing to give up our freedoms for a silver coin, or should I say for a paper certificate.

[scyth]

The framers wanted a very weak President with very limited authority.

they also did not want females & colored people to vote, so ?

[Rob C]

I watched Mrs Obama's farewell speech on the news today; what a charming lady. A very hard act to follow.

Rob C

[N80]

they also did not want females & colored people to vote, so ?

So what is your point? Or are you just expecting to end conversation with that old liberal conversation grenade? (Which isn't going to make the intelligent folks here at LuLa flinch.)

[N80]

Frankly I blame the Congress and their cowardice.  It's easier for them to let the President take a hit for decisions.  Their thinking is why stick their own necks out.  So they have been letting him make the decisions which has increased Presidential power over time to the point he can pretty much declare war without the congress.  This is not what the constitution allows.  The framers wanted a very weak President with very limited authority.  They wanted laws written mostly in the various States and most things left to the People.  But we also have allowed ourselves to be cowed into submission with our desires for handouts.  So we give up so many of our personal freedoms and give all this power to morons in the government who get us into wars, spend our money, break the bank, and really could care less for us as long as they get re-elected.  In the end, it's our own fault because we're willing to give up our freedoms for a silver coin, or should I say for a paper certificate.

Correct.

[jeremyrh]

I watched Mrs Obama's farewell speech on the news today; what a charming lady. A very hard act to follow.

Rob C

Well I'm sure you'll see Melania saying the same words before too very long :-)

[scyth]

So what is your point?

screw the framers & co when the situation allows

[N80]

screw the framers & co when the situation allows

Ah, the relativist mantra. Which is no better than the anarchist mantra. Condemn people 200 years ago by holding them to your own standard assuming that your standard is better just because it is now. It's kind of like condemning Newton's calculus because he was an anti-Semite. The irony, of course, is that in all probability the standard that you would propose has no basis other than it is what you believe to be proper or true. In reality, that's all the founders did. So your double standard becomes less irony and more hypocrisy.

Further, in the context of this portion of this thread, the issue at hand is that the executive branch has been trending towards autonomy over the last 50 years. Do you believe the founders of this nation were wrong to want to limit that just because they were wrong about other matters? Does this practice appeal to you? Will it appeal to you if King Trump ramps it up a bit too?

Its fine to be a relativist. Just don't whine about it when those who don't share your ideologies are too.

[James Clark]

Frankly I blame the Congress and their cowardice.  It's easier for them to let the President take a hit for decisions.  Their thinking is why stick their own necks out.  So they have been letting him make the decisions which has increased Presidential power over time to the point he can pretty much declare war without the congress.  This is not what the constitution allows.  The framers wanted a very weak President with very limited authority.  They wanted laws written mostly in the various States and most things left to the People.  But we also have allowed ourselves to be cowed into submission with our desires for handouts.  So we give up so many of our personal freedoms and give all this power to morons in the government who get us into wars, spend our money, break the bank, and really could care less for us as long as they get re-elected.  In the end, it's our own fault because we're willing to give up our freedoms for a silver coin, or should I say for a paper certificate.

Hi Alan - in a general sense you're right, but within that context it's important to remember a couple of things. 

First (and this is critical if you're making and Originalist argument - you may not be but I think George might be), it would be incorrect to assume that the framers (or the colonial citizenry) were of one mind on Executive or federal power.  In fact they ranged the gamut from desiring almost no Federal authority all the way to what some labeled "royalist," but what we do know is that the original "constitution" - the Articles of Confederation - proved to be unworkable due to an utter lack of Federal authority and were replaced.  So we know that the Founders "repealed and replaced" the radical state's rights version of the governing principles of this nation because they were ineffective.

Second, I think your assertion that increased executive authority comes from trading freedoms for handouts is, well,  extremely tenuous.  If anything, liberals have been granting entitlements WITHOUT corresponding increases in authority, much to the chagrin of conservatives that see them as pandering handouts.  I don't have a position (relative to this thread, that is) on the benefits or lack thereof of entitlements, but while I can entertain an argument that entitlements have the ultimate effect of "buying votes" I'm not prepared to make the jump to connecting that to increased executive authority (..and if I was, Medicare part D would rank up there with anything Obama has done).

Where we can agree is that Congress is more interested in pandering than governing (though they must be bad at even that, because our civic engagement is pathetic), and as such has become wholly ineffective on issues that really matter, but frankly, if the legislative body won't govern, someone has to.  It's not ideal, but it is reality. 

[James Clark]

Ah, the relativist mantra. Which is no better than the anarchist mantra. Condemn people 200 years ago by holding them to your own standard assuming that your standard is better just because it is now. It's kind of like condemning Newton's calculus because he was an anti-Semite. The irony, of course, is that in all probability the standard that you would propose has no basis other than it is what you believe to be proper or true. In reality, that's all the founders did. So your double standard becomes less irony and more hypocrisy.

Further, in the context of this portion of this thread, the issue at hand is that the executive branch has been trending towards autonomy over the last 50 years. Do you believe the founders of this nation were wrong to want to limit that just because they were wrong about other matters? Does this practice appeal to you? Will it appeal to you if King Trump ramps it up a bit too?

Its fine to be a relativist. Just don't whine about it when those who don't share your ideologies are too.

It's not that the standard is better because it's "now," but rather that the information we have is better because we have 250 more years of knowledge.   Obviously this is easy to see in areas like codified racial and sexual franchise, but it's fairly obvious that even civil communications laws written 30 years ago have become archaic and badly outmoded since the advent of the Internet, for example. 

This isn't to say that the Enlightenment-based core principles laid down in the Bill of Rights aren't as relevant as guiding principles today as they were then - I strongly believe they are - it's just that it's impossible to argue that the framers of the document would or could have had any inkling of the practical realities of the world we live in. 

As a rule, though, I advocate for little resistance when loosening restrictions (I'm pro Heller, for example, even though I don't think it's actually correctly reasoned Originalism, and I think most people who think they need a gun to protect themselves are a little paranoid) but massive resistance when *adding* restriction.  Sadly, most people want to argue for individual liberties only when they personally agree with the underlying morality of the issue in question.

[N80]

James, I'm not sure I'm an Originalist (because I'm not real sure what that entails) except in the sense that the original framers designed the document to be modified. Right? Yes, it takes a lot. But we do it and we have done it. Sometimes for the better. Sometimes for the worse. The framers fully understood that time and situations change.

The issue I have is with the idea that because of the progress of technology or science that we are not the same kinds of humans we have always been and that even the most basic principles cannot apply if they are 'old'. Shakespeare (via Ecclesiastes) was right, there is no new thing under the sun.

scyth's response to my question about what his point was regarding the failings of the founding fathers was:

"screw the framers & co when the situation allows"

Tongue in cheek? Silliness? Sophomoric? Or dead serious? He gave no indication. But if we relativize even the soundest of principles of government then we are simply left to our own devices and the result of that is might-makes-right. Anarchy. Or, might-makes-right totalitarianism.

I'm just curious about scyth's comment. It is such trite liberal speak which traps itself in paradox. "Our founding fathers were terrible people. We live in a terrible country." The notion that we are any better than those racist misogynistic greed mongers is in itself preposterous. Time has done a lot of things but it certainly has not made us, as humans, more virtuous. Anyone who thinks that does not know the history of the last 100 years. And in 200 years the same relativists will look at us in self-righteous indignation.

And again, "screw the framers" as a mantra as an unprincipled billionaire egomaniac becomes president? That is beyond ignorant regardless of your political leanings.

[Rob C]

Well I'm sure you'll see Melania saying the same words before too very long :-)

Déjà vu?

Rob

[Alan Klein]

Hi Alan - in a general sense you're right, but within that context it's important to remember a couple of things. 

First (and this is critical if you're making and Originalist argument - you may not be but I think George might be), it would be incorrect to assume that the framers (or the colonial citizenry) were of one mind on Executive or federal power.  In fact they ranged the gamut from desiring almost no Federal authority all the way to what some labeled "royalist," but what we do know is that the original "constitution" - the Articles of Confederation - proved to be unworkable due to an utter lack of Federal authority and were replaced.  So we know that the Founders "repealed and replaced" the radical state's rights version of the governing principles of this nation because they were ineffective.

Second, I think your assertion that increased executive authority comes from trading freedoms for handouts is, well,  extremely tenuous.  If anything, liberals have been granting entitlements WITHOUT corresponding increases in authority, much to the chagrin of conservatives that see them as pandering handouts.  I don't have a position (relative to this thread, that is) on the benefits or lack thereof of entitlements, but while I can entertain an argument that entitlements have the ultimate effect of "buying votes" I'm not prepared to make the jump to connecting that to increased executive authority (..and if I was, Medicare part D would rank up there with anything Obama has done).

Where we can agree is that Congress is more interested in pandering than governing (though they must be bad at even that, because our civic engagement is pathetic), and as such has become wholly ineffective on issues that really matter, but frankly, if the legislative body won't govern, someone has to.  It's not ideal, but it is reality. 

  I agree with you that it's the whole government that "buys votes", not mainly the President.  I disagree with you that the President should govern "if the legislative body won't".  The legislative body does govern when it refuses to pass laws.  It's a check on the President and the constitution requires the legislative to write laws for Presidential signoff or veto not the other way around.  Someone once said that the best government is the one that governs the least.  I think it's just grand when we have different parties in control of Congress and the President.  Then you don't get one-party Democrat laws like Obamacare when half the country is in disagreement and not one Republican voted for it.  Or what's going to happen now with its one-party Republican repeal.  You get fewer but better laws when the government is divided.  Trade-offs have to be done.  You have to consider the other side's viewpoints to get laws passed.  Then more of the country has a stake in the law and one feels that they had some real  representation rather then it been jammed down their throat. 

[Rob C]

At the end of it, the truth seems to be that people are basically ungovernable, if by government you mean, or even look, for broader satisfaction.

I sometimes think of Benito M's Italy: he drained the marshes, got the trains running yet found himself in the catch 22 of joining the mighty, bellicose German or disappearing, along with his weak country, into the same hole as France, Poland etc. etc. A no-win choice, a sort of Hobsonian moment in the history of the country of tiny nation states pushed into the melting pot by yet another set of people who knew what was best... You could think Spain and see the same thing, not to mention southern France, where dreams of a sovereign, eastern Pyrenean unit are still alive in memory and possibly even in language. Go to the Spanish islands, and it's even more precise.

The problem, of course, is Man: he doesn't love his neighbour, not in the least.

Rob

[Alan Klein]

Anyone who looks for satisfaction by getting the government involved is nuts.  It was Reagan who said that you know you're in trouble when you hear, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

[N80]

At the end of it, the truth seems to be that people are basically ungovernable, if by government you mean, or even look, for broader satisfaction.

I sometimes think of Benito M's Italy: he drained the marshes, got the trains running yet found himself in the catch 22 of joining the mighty, bellicose German or disappearing, along with his weak country, into the same hole as France, Poland etc. etc. A no-win choice, a sort of Hobsonian moment in the history of the country of tiny nation states pushed into the melting pot by yet another set of people who knew what was best... You could think Spain and see the same thing, not to mention southern France, where dreams of a sovereign, eastern Pyrenean unit are still alive in memory and possibly even in language. Go to the Spanish islands, and it's even more precise.

The problem, of course, is Man: he doesn't love his neighbour, not in the least.

Rob

You make some good points. The cliche' is true that democracy is the least efficient form of government. It is also true that the best form of government is a benevolent dictator. There was very little violence in Iraq before we ran Saddam out.....as long as you were a Bathist, of course. I think it is also important to understand that the US government CAN make us secure and safe. Totally. It is possible, if we are willing to give up the freedom necessary to do so. And we've been slowly but steadily doing that for the last 50-60 years.

And Rob, you are correct, I think, that man does not love his neighbor. He loves himself. And anyone who starts with the premise that mankind is basically good and can be perfected in goodness with proper governance, education and technology is both unobservant and deluded. All the governance, education and whiz bang technology have changed very little that matters throughout history. We still die mostly from infectious disease, poverty and war. We may have lowered the per capita numbers in the last 100 years but we have boosted the totals exponentially.

But again, the staggeringly amazing thing about the founders of the US is that they understood ALL of this and figured it into our constitution. The advent of MRI machines, global jet travel, cell phones, the internet and global markets do not change its relevance OR its flexibility. Those who think it is irrelevant (for whatever reason) must be charged with coming up with something better. If they think a giant bureaucracy is the answer then they are idiots. Period. The problem at hand is those who wish to wield power in both/all parties have found ways to abuse it. These include abuses of executive authority, abuses of agencies and departments as well as judicial abuses. All of these are far easier to use and misuse than the prescribed Constitutional processes that were intended. Those are hard and they often carry political penalties that our representative prefer not to risk. Sadly, we have no statesmen any longer. None.

In the US the answer is stunningly simple. Term limits. One survey a number of years ago showed that 96% of US citizens want term limits. We the people have probably never agreed on anything with such unity in our entire history. And yet nothing happens. This is proof enough that we no longer have even a facsimile of a representative government. And when you burden those who have no voice there will eventually be a last straw (no matter how comfortable you make them). Those most likely to snap are those who own guns. These folks are generally constitutionalists. And if you think this is some sort of paranoid delusions simply consider this: The citizens of the US own half a billion guns. Thats more than all of the rest of the people in all other countries AND their militaries COMBINED. And these people generally also know how to use them. Relevant? I don't know.