Hacker News Reader

Comment by phpisthebest | Hacker News Reader

Symbols can be powerful...

That is the issue, the foundational principle of the United States was that we were a federalist system with a weak and narrowly defined federal government. The office of Presidency should be inconsequential to the Everyday citizen of either the US or the world.

The fact that we continually shift more power from Local / State government, then from Congress to the Executive is the exact reason the president is a "Symbol of Power"

>Kind of like how 9/11 wasn't about killing some office workers

Again the theory of Distribution apply here to building as well. World Trade Center was attacked because NYC is seen as the Central Place for world finance.

NYC has become too powerful and that power should be distributed.

View on HN

> The fact that we continually shift more power from Local / State government, then from Congress to the Executive is the exact reason the president is a "Symbol of Power"

This is all rank and dubious speculation wrt your general rule about POTUS needing a dedicated security team.

Hell, Duane Johnson needs a dedicated security team.

If you are positing a federal government so weak that POTUS is not widely known within the U.S. population, you're political views are more radical than you're letting on.

What part of GP's take on the American federalist system are you describing as radical? Seems to me that the truly radical thing is what the federal government has morphed into over the years, its founding constitutional document notwithstanding.

Reducing the federal government to that scale would involve getting ride or the DOD and almost every federal agency. It is "radical" because that position is completely unacceptable to the vast majority, while parts of that plan might appeal to parts of the political spectrum, taken as a whole it is a plan thay has miniscule support. Thus, it is considered a radical view point.

hmmm... Following the Constitution is Radical now...

The US Navy is the only constitutional branch of the DoD. How is that for being radical.

Yes, advocating such widespread changes to society on the basis of a specific interpretation/understanding of the constitution (the root document of our government) fits the meanings of the word almost too perfectly:

> Arising from or going to a root or source; basic.

>Departing markedly from the usual or customary; extreme or drastic.

> Relating to or advocating fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions.

> designed to remove the root of a disease or all diseased and potentially diseased tissue

> of or relating to the origin

> favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions

> Favoring fundamental change, or change at the root cause of a matter.

If we have to put up with mass shootings and forcing women to choose between unwanted pregnancies and prison because of specific interpretations of the Constitution based solely on 18th century idioms, then we should go all in.

I don't think they had to defend against threats from the air or space when they drafted the constitution. Nor were spies all that useful outside of wartime.

This "well it is old document" falls on deaf ears with me. The solution on if parts of the constitution are out-dated is to pass amendments to the consititon, which has been done 27 times in our history.

It seems today however we have allowed the federal government to simply ignore it because it is "too hard" to pass an amendment. Sorry if it important enough to expand the power of the federal government is should be important enough to put in the work to amend the constitution, and if you can not pass it then clearly the nation agree's it is not in scope of the federal government.

And by "nation" I do not mean a "democratic vote where by 51% of the population tells the 49% what do to" which seems to be common in the "Protect our democracy" crowd.

Where are they even overstepping? They don't get involved in situations outside of their power, like defending the country and regulating interstate commerce.

What you're not seeing with your point is that the federal government actually hasn't really expanded their power, it's just that more and more things have been "capitalism-ified" to where doing business purely within one state is uneconomical. More and more of society has transition to conducting business over state and national lines, and thus the federal government is governing more of the everyday person's life than they were 100 years ago.

> regulating interstate commerce

The same Interstate Commerce Clause that in Wickard v. Filburn the federal judiciary interpreted as giving the federal legislature the authority to regulate intrastate non-commerce; and in turn relied upon in Gonzales v. Raich that the federal government has the authority to regulate the growing and use of cannabis for medical purposes by one man acting within one state and according to that state's laws for his own person.

> More and more of society has transition to conducting business over state and national lines

This is true, but the above examples show that the federal government is intruding in people's personal actions with no commercial purpose that stays confined to one state, on the basis that those actions might exert a force, however minute, on interstate commerce. The federal government may as well say that they can regulate everyone since people breathe air which crosses state lines and therefore is under federal jurisdiction.

>>federal government actually hasn't really expanded their power

You have to be kidding me. I did not think anyone would honestly make that case. Many argue about how the federal government needed to expand their power but I have never seen anyone claim they have not expanded their power at all

That is new one for me, and not supported at all by the historical record, which for example was clear there needed to be a amendment passed to ban alcohol but then magically due to some very bad court rulings (like wickard) they could ban whole classes of drugs without a constitutional amendment

History is VERY, VERY clear that FDR massively expanded the size, and scope of government and held the supreme court hostage forcing them rule his way after striking down many of his laws originally as unconstitutional

No one that has studied American History can say with the strait face the Federal Government has not expanded its powers

The government changed because the nation changed. It's now the richest country in the world, with a population of 330 million people, and spans an entire continent from ocean to ocean. Even if you just consider the constitutional commander-in-chief duties, whoever holds the role is going to be a person of global importance.

Can you name the president of Switzerland?

This is the nation that hosts the davos summit, is the hub of FIFA and red cross, plus several other high profile multinationals, NGOs, and wotld bodies, and is also the only core european country not parricipating in thr EU zone agreement.

Surely if you know the PM of Spain, Norway or Poland you ought to know switzerland right?

The position of the Swiss president by design (i.e. the Swiss constitution) doesn't hold any special powers. That's quite different than the US president or even European PMs. A Swiss-style executive in the US would be a fascinating scenario, but it's really not how the systems in the US are set up (nor would the non-required aspects of it necessarily form the same way, e.g. the many-party nature is not strictly required and it could devolve into a two-party-system in Switzerland too in theory)

The Japanese emperor has zero power and lives in one of the safest countries in the world, but no one would be naïve enough to think he doesn’t need protection.

I always thought the two WTC towers were more representative of global capitalism, not just good targets for attacking NYC.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com