Hacker News Reader

Comment by ghtbircshotbe | Hacker News Reader

This problem has already been solved. The legislature creates the laws, the executive executes the laws, and the judiciary interprets the laws. But now we're in a situation where the executive does whatever it wants including illegally shutting down congressionally created programs, the legislature lets it happen despite not having the votes to legally change the law, and the judiciary is also letting it happen when they aren't inventing new constitutional amendments. If you're asking how to prevent society from descending into authoritarianism, they've been trying to figure that out since Caesar at least.

View on HN

Caesar was assassinated because the Senate was jealous Caesar's wealth, power, prestige and love by the people. Also because he wanted to redistribute land, threatening their own power.

I don't think that is the consensus view of why Caesar was assassinated:

>...According to Suetonius, Caesar's assassination ultimately occurred primarily due to concerns that he wished to crown himself the king of Rome.[13] These concerns were exacerbated by the "three last straws" of 45 and 44 BC. In just a few months, Caesar had disrespected the Senate, removed People's Tribunes, and toyed with monarchy. By February, the conspiracy that caused his assassination was being born.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Julius_Caesar

lol I can see how in like 200 years we'll be hearing the same opinion about Trump!

> The legislature

Congress 53/45 R; House 219/215 R

> creates the laws, the executive

Donald Trump (R)

> executes the laws, and the judiciary

SCOTUS (5-4 R)

> interprets the laws.

So Republicans create, execute, interpret, and enforce the laws. Congratulations on discovering how the party system works. Guess you're Big Poland (PiS) now. You can watch this on the news: Fox (R-Murdoch), CBS (R-Weiss), or read about it in the Washington Post (R-Bezos)

(snark aside, the situation where there's popular demand for authoritarianism is very dangerous, difficult to unravel, but like in Poland, it can be done once the public realize their mistake)

Republicans don't have a sufficient majority in the Senate.

They do. The 60 votes requirement is just a handshake agreement 50 votes + the vice president can remove at any moment.

It's so maddening. They just decided in like 2010 they didn't want to ever do anything again.

Doing things puts you on the hook when those things fail. Politically it's much better to keep the limit in place so that you can make virtue signalling votes that are guaranteed to fail. That way you're seen as "doing something" but without having to be responsible for it.

But there is a way for even an aligned federal government to fight back against the slide into authoritarianism, even with an authoritarian president expanding the powers of the executive, and that is for the other branches to strongly advocate for their own power. The problem as I see it is that Congress literally does not care that they are ceding more power than ever before to the executive. Mostly I think this is due to the cult of personality aspect of Trumpism and the idea that you're basically either with him and in the party or against him and out of the party, so it's impossible to drum up support within the party to fight back against the wresting of power. But also it's because the Republican party has no interest in actually passing legislation because most non-budgetary directions they can go will result in incredible cross-pressure (healthcare reform, federal abortion bans, etc). They believe they are better off not doing policy and letting Trump do whatever.

>> The legislature >Congress 53/45 R; House 219/215 R

It's the Senate, not "Congress". Colloquially, "Congress" usually refers to the House of Representatives.

>SCOTUS (5-4 R)

> interprets the laws.

Actually, it's 6-3, not 5-4.

I get that you're not from or live in the US. Please understand, I'm not trying to insult or demean you. But you're making statements that are not true.

I believe the term is "FTFY." And you're welcome.

You are also wrong. Congress is both houses of the legislature. It’s the senate and the house of reps.

FTFY

cf. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47004438

If you're going to be snarky you should try being right.

You said

> "Congress" usually refers to the House of Representatives.

Which is incorrect and what I was responding to. Reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong suit either eh?

Who is your congressperson?

I needn't say any more, do I?

I'd also add that I said:

Colloquially, "Congress" usually refers to the House of Representatives.

Colloquial (adjective):[0]

1a: used in or characteristic of familiar and informal conversation

Did you just not know the meaning of that word or did you intentionally decide to ignore it?

[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colloquial

> Colloquially, "Congress" usually refers to the House of Representatives.

"Congress" is the name of the whole bicameral legislature, not either one of the houses, though "Congressman" or "Congresswoman" refers to a member of the House of Representatives.

Sorry for the late reply. Reading comprehension not your strong suit?

GP said:

>> The legislature >Congress 53/45 R; House 219/215 R

I said:

>It's the Senate, not "Congress".

You need a mutex to constrain the natural tendencies. The mutex is regulation. Regulation has been defeated and we live in oligarchy (see: Gilens and Page).

Ironically Caesar was merely the culmination of the ever-increasing centralization of wealth & power into fewer hands. He wasn't assassinated in order to restore freedom to Rome, he was assassinated by former elites who resented that they weren't in charge like they used to be. Civil rights actually improved, somewhat dramatically, during Rome's Imperial age.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com