Hacker News Reader

Comment by shadowgovt | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure how standard procedure it is for the President to intervene in a down-the-chain contract decision though.

The question shouldn't be whether it's standard, but if the office has the authority to intervene. You can then work backwards to legislative hot fixes to governance deficiencies.

Unfortunately, the question of how much authority the office has depends on which party currently occupies the office and who's asking.

Which is why it's important to craft policy of strong checks and balances, regardless of which party has a majority. Today you're the Rebellion, tomorrow you're the Empire. Design systems resilient to subversion or tyranny by anyone.

Yes, I've noticed this too: whenever the party I favor is in office, the office is a lame duck, unable to lift a finger without Congressional approval. Whenever the enemy party is in office, they're absolute tyrants answerable to no-one. This sure is convenient, as it saves me from all kinds of cognitive dissonance!

Uncanny. Do you also find that the morality of a war keeps switching for you?

Whether or not the occupant has just been impeached for leveraging public assets against political enemies seems to also be a relevant factor.

Even that seems to 100% be prior party lines anyway.

>Even that seems to 100% be prior party lines anyway.

The non-partisan GAO seems to disagree: https://apnews.com/9127109f325778490fd40c5f98be1817

That's somewhat irrelevant to the question of what people's opinions are of the power the president should have though, isn't it. I'm not defending Trump, I'm saying that D's are currently arguing he shouldn't have power that they would be happy to see exercised if it wasn't an R in office.

Sure, if this had precedence. Would you say illegal actions taken by the president are relevant to whether they should continue to have power? This is the question that non-partisan people are considering.

>> Would you say illegal actions taken by the president are relevant to whether they should continue to have power?

Absolutely and immediately, once convicted, but that hasn't happened. And to emphasize my point about party lines - how much do you want to bet it won't happen?

But let's be clear that my first comment was tongue-in-cheek. I'm not saying the president ACTUALLY has more power depending on the party. I'm saying that things people were fine with under Obama are suddenly a problem under Trump. And I will expect the same thing next time there's a Democrat in office - suddenly Republicans will flip-flop on the way the office is supposed to operate.

edit: Maybe a more appropriate question is, among people who label themselves as "Democrat" and "Republican", who thinks that Trump should lose power after his impeachment, who also thinks that Clinton should have lost power after his impeachment?

It's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison since one of them was impeached for lying to a grand jury (about a topic that was outside the scope of the investigation and more than a little irrelevant to any questions of high crimes and misdemeanors) and another was impeached for abuse of the power of his office to solicit aid from a foreign country in collecting damaging information on a political rival.

Intent and outcomes matter if the question is "Should this person lose power?"

That's my whole point. Increasingly, people's idea of the rule of law is their subjective opinion of this person. Trump could have been impeached for the exact same offense, and 99% of people opinions of what should happen next wouldn't change.

I believe if Trump were impeached for the same offense, with the same fact pattern, your assertion is not true.

The offenses and fact patterns in question are quite different in these two cases.

So you think the majority-Republican Senate might actually convict?

Oh, absolutely not, because they don't think the way I do. The GOP has made it clear in this generation they care about power to rule and very little else; not their legacy, not the stability of the US government long-term, not quid pro quo or fair play. They seem to see their situation as one of existential threat, and they're operating as if the moment they lose control of Congress and the Presidency at the same time they will cease to exist as a political party.

Almost as if... it's basically a party-line vote. Which is exactly what I've been saying since my first comment in this thread. Why are we even discussing this? You keep proving my point by bringing it back to party lines. Trump was impeached on a near-perfect party line vote. Clinton was impeached, 2.5% away from being a perfect party line vote. It's virtually always a party line vote when it's a question of which president should have which power and get away with what.

I don't think "virtually always parties" is a useful observation if it has little predictive power, and I don't think one can make predictions on a three-data-point event.

But on the other topic (apples to oranges comparison): it's possible for both votes to be party-line regardless of the fact pattern if one party is corrupt and just always votes to maximize party power independent of fact patterns, and the fact pattern would induce a more objective juror to vote one way in one case and the other way in the other case.

(The difference would be one would anticipate were a Democrat to do what Trump did, they'd be roundly impeached and convicted).

"little predictive power". Okay. Within 2 votes, the senate's verdict will be in favor of Trump, 55-45.

"1 of 2 parties is just corrupt" lol ok

Do you disagree that the scenario I described would explain the voting pattern or that one of the two parties is corrupt?

I disagree that any vote on the matter of how much power the executive should have, or if any specific executive should be punished for an abuse of that power, would fall along anything other than party lines, with those in the same party as the current executive voting in his or her favor.

Ah, okay. So at least one of the two parties is corrupt.

Yes, and I think both. The Republicans aren't the only ones that put party above principal in votes. I mean ask a Democratic official why they oppose the electoral college, and then ask if they would support getting rid of superdelegates in the primary. And look at the reactions to Tulsi Gabbard's "present" vote in the impeachment. Absolute furor that she broke party lines and subsequent exclusion from debates.

Are you aware of anybody asking them, or is that a hypothetical?

I'm sick of waiting for the reply button to show up and I'm heading out for the day. But it's not hypothetical. My state voted to give our electoral college votes to the popular vote a few years back. I emailed all the state representatives and got canned emails back along party lines, some explaining how anything but direct democracy causes people's voices to not be heard. I asked the Democrats if they would support a proposal to eliminate superdelegates in the primaries, and I didn't get any responses. I've asked two directly at various events, one told me "I'm not concerned about that particular issue" and the other one told me that they've already made the opinion on that clear (I never found where and was asked by an usher to move back for other questions). Don't know how or if they voted when the party eventually did change that, but I have little hope that asking them questions in the future would mean anything.

Both questions are interesting for different reasons.

Well, he is head of the executive branch which the DoD falls under. He can issue whatever order he wants. It's up to the court to decide if they are/were lawful. SOP doesn't mean a whole lot here.

SOP doesn't constrain his options, but it makes one wonder why intervention was needed if it's unusual and it occurs.

It is quite clear whether Trump's interference constituted foul play. Everyone who has been paying attention understands very well that he is motivated strongly and solely by his enmity of and hatred towards Bezos.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com