If an executive order can put grants under political control, they were already under political control. We just didn't know it.
That is the case with so much of what is happening now. If these things are possible, the system was already broken.
That is the case with so much of what is happening now. If these things are possible, the system was already broken.
The three branches of government are supposed to be checks and balances against each other. But turns out two of the three don't have any actual power to enforce their mandates. This has worked as long as the three branches grudgingly respected each others role. But now that the executive branch simply decided to ignore the other two whenever convenient, turns out there is no recourse.
That a Republican Congress isn't checking a Republican President isn't evidence of a lack of checks and balances.
And points to why the President is pushing so hard for Texas to gerrymander additional Republican seats into the House...
In the current context, gerrymandering only serves to prevent impeachment at this point, but it could permit even more extreme executive-dictated, legislative rubber-stamping. In the long-term, it would stack the deck for partisan cheating.
Perhaps an amendment is needed to insist on independent, non-partisan district map commissions for every state at the federal level.
PS: I used to live in Greg Casar's ultra-salamander TX-35, but now it bypasses me down I-35 with an umbilical or tiny body from SATX to ATX. TX-15 ® an TX-28 (D) run through my ZIP Code now.
This is something too important to be left to political hacks of some states but not others who seek to cheat at elections to favor incumbents.
Future people must endeavor to split up power even more, make more functions more independent and shielded from political manipulation, and prevent the rich from monopolizing and corrupting political office, government, mass media distribution, and journalism.
The problem is that a big percentage of the population is ok with this, and in that case it doesn’t matter if it’s illegal or not. There is a reason why, even if allowed, governments didn’t do these kind of things: population didn’t want it.
It has always been my impression from a distance that Americans believe the federal system was perfectly designed and is inherently robust, when in fact there have been concerns from day one about what would happen if it fell into the hands of a leader who didn't care for the law.
And that's where you are now.
But re: the executive orders, actually it is not clear that they can do this. As with many of Trump's EOs it may simply be illegal because -- newsflash -- Trump is a crook and he has no intention of following the law if it limits him.
This is a man who tried a coup and who has broad immunity for anything he does that even looks like governance, so why would he let a little thing like the law trouble him? It didn't bother him when he exported people to El Salvador without due process. It doesn't bother him that his "emergency" tariffs almost certainly lack a legal basis.
I don't think the good faith reasoning about the system being broken by design really matters: the USA is falling victim to an accelerated Hungary-style fascist restructuring.
Nixon looks like a boy scout by comparison.
Having politicians exercise more direct control over this type of spending is good and as it should be. The concept of people taking money via force from other citizens yet answering to nobody is dystopian. The sort of people who support this idea are often, it seems, those who suspect their ideas and plans are so deeply unpopular that people could not be easily persuaded to fund them directly.
Right, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is under executive control? Is it not the case that Congress usually decides, one way or another, where the money goes, and it's the executive's job to see it does?