zeke5123a
5mo ago
Would do you think of the ability to bring back to life basically people who overdose? I forget the name of the drug but it starts with an N if memory serves. Maybe Narcan or something like that.
zeke5123a
5mo ago
Let’s challenge that in the courts. The executive power cannot be vested in the president if he cannot fire people who attempt to block his exercise of the executive power.
There might be statutes but that doesn’t make them law. Maybe you need a refund from schoolhouse rock
zeke5123a
5mo ago
We are operating under the assumption that the executive controls the executive and the idea for example that the president cannot send emails to his subordinates or fire them is absurd. Government sector unions should be per se illegal.
zeke5123a
5mo ago
Sort of yes. They think with technology they can make enough efficiency gains that even if they fire the more competent people the efficiency gains will offset the productivity lost from the fired employees. So basically the thesis is we can cut government costs (eg payroll) without cutting government productivity.
zeke5123a
5mo ago
Perhaps. Alternatively Russia may have believed it was necessary to kill the head of the snake to Citrix the Donbas.
Ultimately, I think Russia was motivated by a few things (protecting the Russian people in Eastern Ukraine, land greed, slowing nato expansion, and strategic goals relating to Crimea). Some of these things could be described as Ukrainian complicity and some of them not. The whole war is somewhat more complex than the standard description but even accounting for the nuance doesn’t make Russia an angel; the nuance merely reveals that Ukraine isn’t an angel either.
zeke5123a
5mo ago
My wife and I have had a decent number of kids. I can’t imagine any woman finds carrying a baby for 9 months a joy. That doesn’t mean there aren’t joyful moments but on the whole it sucks per my wife.
zeke5123a
5mo ago
Don’t be cute. Of course Russia supported the eastern province just like the US supported Kiev. Doesn’t mean there wasn’t on going kinetic activity by Kiev against the eastern province
zeke5123a
5mo ago
Isn’t that the ball of wax with Ukraine? It is far from clear the eastern provinces were okay with the Kiev crew. It was a nation state but one with a slow burn civil war.
zeke5123a
5mo ago
Also the federal government isn’t judgement proof unless they refuse to waive sovereign immunity
zeke5123a
5mo ago
They would cite Santos precedent and kick the person out of congress (which would be justified)
zeke5123a
5mo ago
Umm….republicans have the majority (unless the joke is that some rep are actually Dems)
zeke5123a
5mo ago
Trump wouldn’t be blowing his political capital. This stunt would increase his capital. People generally don’t like sit ins. Columbia wasn’t popular.
zeke5123a
5mo ago
-
Saying congress did X isn’t showing how it’s constitutional. The constitution says the legislative power is vested in congress. Congress cannot therefore vest that power in anyone else. It cannot say you can make the law for example.
-
I actually suspect the president destroying the independent agency won’t change that much — most of what the executive does is already controlled by the president. But killing the bureaucracy? That is worthwhile as now you can have real change which might lead to congressional control.
zeke5123a
5mo ago
Independent wasn’t about trying to get around non delegation; it was a silly progressive idea of making it non political.
The legislative power is vested in congress. Congress cannot delegate that authority even if the court doesn’t want to go that far (eg congress can’t say “Zeke now gets to write all of the laws”. Independence is largely orthogonal to non delegation concerns.
zeke5123a
5mo ago
No this is all rather nonsensical. First, congress delegates to many agencies including non independent. The grants to both are governed by the same law and cover significant activity. Indeed many of the most relevant are not independent agencies though of course some are.
The only real difference between independent and dependent agencies is whether the president can remove people at the agencies at will. That’s it. There aren’t other special rules that those independent agencies have to abide by that dependent agencies do not. They all must abide by the APA. So if the President smashes independent agencies the only difference is who is making the decision; not the process for decision making.
zeke5123a
5mo ago
I’d be more comfortable with something like the Reins act where each regulation only goes into effect with an up / down vote by Congress. Ideally, they’d be subject to four year renewals or something like that.
zeke5123a
5mo ago
Independent is almost certainly worse.
-
The incentives are frequently to grow the power of the agency.
-
People who eventually work on policy decision typically believe in the mission in the department and therefore are ideologically predisposed to grow the agency more.
-
There are little checks on the agency decision making process. And because people coming up in the agency generally share the same beliefs, there is little hope for change.
-
Finally, the bureaucracy is largely chosen from the people in DC. DC is over 90% democrat.
Basically wanting independent agencies is wanting permanent statist democrat rule.
zeke5123a
5mo ago
Except that clearly the APA would still apply to the president. The believers of the independent executive need to argue what is different about the president having the power and the answer seems to be “there might be more change in regulations”
zeke5123a
5mo ago
I doubt it. The power existed. It was just very hard to oppose. Now, at minimum it can be opposed every four years.
zeke5123a
5mo ago
Because we hate the administrative state. It is unconstitutional, unaccountable, stifles growth and productivity, and is very statist / progressive. Admin state delenda est.
zeke5123a
5mo ago
It has been a conservative goal for decades to try to shrink the power of the admin state. Yes I guess that increases somewhat the power of the executive but that’s a small price to pay.
zeke5123a
5mo ago
You fire off a lot of responses but aren’t reading what I wrote.
You said the president cannot make regulations. That would be a curious claim constitutional but let’s put that to the side because that isn’t what I asked.
I asked “where is the constitutional scheme whereby an independent agency can write regulations.” It doesn’t really exist. So before you complain about the president having illegitimate constitutional power (without making the argument) why not argue why independent agencies have that right.
And I’ve been very anti administrative state for years and years. It wasn’t just a happenstance of “oh Trump is doing something yeah.” So get that bullshit out of here.
You talked about making junkies internalize their costs whilst narcan seems to be the opposite.
More options
Context Copy link