undefined | Better HN

0 pointsapawloski1y ago0 comments

This is the part that I'm so surprised about. It turns out that people don't actually care about the law when it's inconvenient. And it turns out that people are willing to accept and support crazy things: conflicted/unqualified leaders, the sacrifice of American influence and stability, the alienation of our allies, the purposeful cost-raising for American consumers. What matters most apparently is the culture war.

It's clear that we'll have to agree to disagree and leave it here -- so you're welcome to the final word if you want it -- but I think the feeling that resonates with me in these conversations is "I don't care about the law or other consequences as long as I get my way." That feels bad to me.

And when people making those points disagree with me on it -- this week it's justification to kill USAID and give treasury control to Musk, next week it will be the destruction of the department of education, soon it will be ignoring the 14th amendment of the constitution -- it's hard to tell if they aren't being honest with me or if they aren't being honest with themselves.

0 comments

rayiner1y ago

This is about upholding the highest law. The Framers intended the executive branch to be responsive to elections. Federalist 39 spends a lot of time analyzing the best way for people with authority in the “administration” to be appointed by the politically accountable President and confirmed by the politically accountable senate. https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_2_2-3s.... The Constitution requires that voters must be able to effectively change government policy through the election of the president. It does not envision presidential elections as being some mere signal provided as an input to a permanent administration.

That legal rule does not depend on voters’ motivations. If they want to deport all the illegal immigrants—an executive action within the discretion of the president—that’s their prerogative. How civil servants feel about that is immaterial. Voters’ cultural and policy preferences must win out. And the problem we have now is that, regardless of who wins the elections, the government remains overwhelmingly controlled by a group with particular cultural preferences.

This isn’t about “law” versus “culture war.” The culture war is simply the factual context in which a legal dispute of tremendous gravity is playing out.

dctoedt1y ago

> The Constitution requires that voters must be able to effectively change government policy through the election of the president.

Forgetting about Article I, are we?

rayiner1y ago

Using “government” here in the British sense to refer to the administration. And it’s Congress that forgot about Article I. Live by the unconstitutional delegation sword die by the unconstitutional delegation sword.

1 more reply

selimthegrim1y ago

Minorities have no rights in your conception of democracy except what they can defend by force. You really think that’s the big picture take of the Federalist papers?

rayiner1y ago

The divergence of civil servants from the public on issues like affirmative action or immigration go to policy preferences, not rights. Individual rights are enforced primarily by courts in any event.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsapawloski1y ago0 comments

0 comments

rayiner1y ago

This isn’t about “law” versus “culture war.” The culture war is simply the factual context in which a legal dispute of tremendous gravity is playing out.

dctoedt1y ago

> The Constitution requires that voters must be able to effectively change government policy through the election of the president.

Forgetting about Article I, are we?

rayiner1y ago

1 more reply

selimthegrim1y ago

Minorities have no rights in your conception of democracy except what they can defend by force. You really think that’s the big picture take of the Federalist papers?

rayiner1y ago

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse