Hacker News Reader

Comment by hackyhacky | Hacker News Reader

> The executive branch shouldn't have nearly as much authority as it does and anything we want to be difficult to be undone should be protected by law

It doesn't matter if rights are protected by law, if the executive branch has no intention to enforce that law.

Right now the executive branch is plainly violating laws established by Congress, and there is no one to stop them.

View on HN

The legislative and judicial branches are both expected to hold the executive accountable if it breaks the law. If that doesn't happen our system is fundamentally broken, we might as well throw it out and start over.

Is there any democratic system that is safe from democratically voting to dissolve the democracy and replace it with whatever autocracy/kakistocracy/oligarchy we've got now?

No, that's a fundamental risk built into democracy.

If any minority group has the power to overrule a majority vote, regardless of what the vote is for, then you don't really have a democracy.

No, every country is one election away from this shit-show.

Which is why under no circumstances you should ever elect anyone who will send yours in that direction. Canadians, take note, the CPC only detached its lips from Trump's backside because they needed to come up for air.

At minimum, don't elect people who staged failed coups. They and their supporters will not ever act like they are bound by law.

The executive branch has blatantly violated numerous laws but so far they have still obeyed court orders which explicitly required them to follow those laws. The real Constitutional crisis will come if they decide to openly defy a federal court order.

I would also note that while the current Trump administration has broken federal laws at an accelerated rate, the previous Biden administration did much the same thing on a smaller scale. People here on HN frequently make excuses for Biden's illegal student loan forgiveness program because they liked the results but if we want to preserve the rule of law then it needs to apply to every program. In the long run allowing unchecked growth of executive branch power and the administrative state will be bad for everyone.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-strikes-dow...

It's quite telling that you see this as remotely comparable to how the executive is being conducted right now.

Its quite telling to me that you don't.

In both cases the executive branch is overstepping legal bounds and attempting to take actions that it isn't legally authorized to do.

Right, continuing a tradition of executive overreach to help indebted students get the dick out of their ass is the exact same thing as dismantling the federal government, installing loyalists, betraying allies, allying with dictators, and promising lots of money to billionaires. I intend for it to be telling that I don't see them as the same. We don't even live on the same fucking planet.

The issue isn't why laws were breached, only that the executive branch intentionally broke them.

The why behind it matters most for how emotional of a response it will invoke, but maybe I'm preaching to the choir here.

I expect "illegal" action in the sense that it will sometimes turn out the executive doesn't have the authority to do it when tested by courts. I expect that to happen when the executive tries to push its agenda past an obstructionist Congress (for better or worse). It's not something I would consider "illegal" in the sense you could go to jail for doing it. But the reasons for acting a certain way absolutely matter here as they always do, and I am much more concerned about sanewashing with both-sideisms. Not just the reasons, but the extent to which he is willing to circumvent established systems of how basically everything works is much more concerning than attempting to pass EOs that are eventually struck down in the courts.

> Not just the reasons, but the extent to which he is willing to circumvent established systems of how basically everything works is much more concerning than attempting to pass EOs that are eventually struck down in the courts.

Hope you don't mind me continuing to pull on this thread, I'm genuinely interested to better understand where you have drawn the line here.

Biden was circumventing established systems when he tried to cancel student debts. He even tried again when the first attempt was blocked. Our higher education system, legal framework around student debt, and the debt industry as a whole was very well established and legally defined.

What is so different with Trump's executive orders? I get that you disagree with them, I disagree with many of them too, but legally I just don't see much light between the two. They both abuse executive orders in an attempt to Dodge existing legislation on the books and make change that the office has no authority to make.

One intended to help relieve people's debts and the other attempts to dismantle the government and remove those who oppose him. I don't understand how you don't understand how they are categorically different actions, even if both are illegal. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. To reiterate

> dismantling the federal government, installing loyalists, betraying allies, allying with dictators, and promising lots of money to billionaires

while lying about everything.

>People here on HN frequently make excuses for Biden's illegal student loan forgiveness program because

Biden didn't do anything you suggest. You're consuming the propaganda. George Bush made it so that Federal workers with student loans could get them discharged at X years of service. X just happened to fall into Trump's first term.

Trump broke the promise made to people doing their civic duty, Biden repaired it.

Biden never took on more authority than what was established almost two decades ago.

Biden was absolutely trying to cancel, or partially pay for, any federally backed loans and pell grants [1]. It wasn't limited only to federal employees with student debt.

[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/student-loan-forgiveness-applic...

I haven't consumed any propaganda. I read the Supreme Court opinion in Biden v. Nebraska. You should do the same instead of making things up.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf

Lawyers are paid very well to present the best case possible for their client, you can't honestly believe that every detail of the events are going to be submitted as evidence, right?

How do you distinguish between propaganda and a lawyer arguing a political policy on behalf of the president of the united states, with the understanding that a lawyer should make the most compelling case they possibly can? Its political, its a one-sided view, its cherry picked, and its meant to persuade the target audience to believe a certain point - that sounds pretty propagandistic to me.

That's a total non sequitur. Did you even read it? I linked to the final Supreme Court opinion, not the arguments made by lawyers on opposing sides or exhibits entered into evidence by the trial court.

Its not a non sequitur. The court can only rule based on what was admitted into the record, and that's controlled by the lawyers who as I said earlier are there to make the best case for their client, not the most complete and accurate case.

Again a total non sequitur. Both sides had ample opportunity to present evidence and make their arguments. If you think something was missed or wrongly decided then be specific and provide citations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com