Live data from Hacker News

America’s system of checks and balances might struggle to contain a despot

economist.com

11–20 of 60 posts

Re: America’s system of checks and balances might struggle to contain a despot

#11
It's hard to know where to begin. It appears that the Economist believes that as long as the right person is president (and, I presume, the right people control Congress), then the Constitution works fine. That isn't a compliment. As James Madison said:

"[W]hat is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself" (Federalist 51, https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=10&page... ).

The Constitution was designed with the assumption that the people in any branch of the government wouldn't necessarily be "the right people," and the other branches would need to serve as watchdogs (even though the other branches wouldn't necessarily be run by the right people either; in the worst case, ruthless politicians in Congress are expected to keep tabs on a ruthless president, and a ruthless president is expected to keep tabs on a ruthless Congress).

There are mistakes in the original Constitution (e.g., the elections of 1796 and 1800), but if today's Constitution relies on the people electing angelic politicians, then we've done something seriously wrong.

Having Congress and the president keep each other in check appears to work in practice as long as they are controlled by different parties. Of course, they are currently controlled by the same party, so there is good reason to worry. The only real solution in that case is to not give power to the president if it bothers you that the person in the Oval Office might not always be someone you like. If you don't like the fact that President Trump can order the assassination of an American citizen, the time to speak up is when President Obama first claims that authority ( http://www.salon.com/2010/02/04/assassinations/ ).

Re: America’s system of checks and balances might struggle to contain a despot

#12
Ackerman's quotes throughout the article are pretty spot on:

>from an 18th-century notable to a 19th-century party magnate to a 20th-century tribune to a 21st-century demagogue

I also largely agree, we have given power to the President over the years because they at least had some reasonableness to them, at least in their context. I am squarely of the opinion that it isn't quite "both sides do it" equally, but it is true both have contributed to Trumps soon to be zero checks on power.

Re: America’s system of checks and balances might struggle to contain a despot

#13

Timing is suspect. We've known this for a long time.

How is it suspect? We now have a president with authoritarian tendencies, it makes sense to be worrying about this now.

this entire article has no place on this site and the DNC through its sycophants and the press has been pressing the Hitler angle since before the swearing in.

Do you feel like a parrot yet?

This site is rapidly sliding into uselessness with all the direct and indirect political crap. apparently the rules don't apply when one side is upset.

No one blinked an eye when the last President decided assassination of American citizens abroad was okay nor having investigations to include wiretaps of journalists.

Re: America’s system of checks and balances might struggle to contain a despot

#14

It's hard to know where to begin. It appears that the Economist believes that as long as the right person is president (and, I presume, the right people control Congress), then the Constitution works fine. That isn't a compliment. As James Madison said: "[W]hat is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men,…

>It appears that the Economist believes that as long as the right person is president (and, I presume, the right people control Congress), then the Constitution works fine.

That wasn't what I got from the article at all. In fact, what I got from it is your conclusion.

Re: America’s system of checks and balances might struggle to contain a despot

#15
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not being downvoted on content, and downvotes are not disagreements. That's not a good HN comment; there's no constructive response to be made to that comment. In particular, from the guidelines: > Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them. I would say that politics is the classic flamewar topic. And your comment certainly didn't add anything new…

Actually, on HN, downvoting can represent disagreement. Usually, flagging is for abuse.

I mean, yes it can. However, I'd say that's relatively rare here. In my reading, if a comment is grey, the majority of the time it's not really contributing in a constructive way.

Re: America’s system of checks and balances might struggle to contain a despot

#16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it suspect? We now have a president with authoritarian tendencies, it makes sense to be worrying about this now.

this entire article has no place on this site and the DNC through its sycophants and the press has been pressing the Hitler angle since before the swearing in. Do you feel like a parrot yet? This site is rapidly sliding into uselessness with all the direct and indirect political crap. apparently the rules don't apply when one side is upset. No one blinked an eye when the last President decided assassination of Americ…

[deleted]

Re: America’s system of checks and balances might struggle to contain a despot

#17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it suspect? We now have a president with authoritarian tendencies, it makes sense to be worrying about this now.

this entire article has no place on this site and the DNC through its sycophants and the press has been pressing the Hitler angle since before the swearing in. Do you feel like a parrot yet? This site is rapidly sliding into uselessness with all the direct and indirect political crap. apparently the rules don't apply when one side is upset. No one blinked an eye when the last President decided assassination of Americ…

Interestingly, the article was flagged dead at one point but has apparently been restored. So there is at least some contingent that agrees with you.

Re: America’s system of checks and balances might struggle to contain a despot

#18
Could someone tell me more about the American Enterprise Institute? They critique "Trump's executive-orders" situation, which a lot of organizations could do but they ended up in the Economist. They basically enter the picture like "we're an authority and we're saying stuff is bad, like we have an actual code for how bad it almost is".

They're a conservative think-tank, they seem to have intelligence/military ties, seem to be pro-intervention (foreign war), were against emission trading (but pro CO2 tax) and have received large donations at one point from ExxonMobil. It's still a bit of a murky picture to me. The name sets off alarm bells for me.

On the article: I noticed the phrase "students of the constitution"; it's an odd combination that elicits (for me) student protests and conservative ideology.

I'm not surprised by the current Trump situation. I've been following the shift to authoritarianism in the US and UK for a while, and this seems like the logical next step.

I haven't considered the US as a travel destination in a while, the same goes for the UK. These countries aren't stable, they're very unfree relative to where I live (NL), and I just won't stand for the level of humiliation their checks at airports have arrived at. They also seem like dangerous places to go, as they're close to no-law zones where the TSA has free reign.

It's bad enough that our largest airport has scanners that make 3D images of your naked body, but to top it up you often get a full pat-down, especially if you wear clothes with pieces of metal in it (like of jeans).

I'd much rather go spend my time and money in countries that don't require my genitals to be patted down by strangers.

Off-topic: I'm not sure why this thread was flagged. I also think it's weird that replies were disabled for e.g. the comment by TulliusCicero, but that might just be because I don't understand the disable-reply-button system.

Re: America’s system of checks and balances might struggle to contain a despot

#19

Could someone tell me more about the American Enterprise Institute? They critique "Trump's executive-orders" situation, which a lot of organizations could do but they ended up in the Economist. They basically enter the picture like "we're an authority and we're saying stuff is bad, like we have an actual code for how bad it almost is". They're a conservative think-tank, they seem to have intelligence/military ties, s…

They're right to criticize any president when it comes to executive orders. The biggest flaw in them is that they lean heavily on implied powers which in itself is a hotly debated clause of the constitution. Anyone worth their salt on any part of the US political spectrum would oppose their overuse and abuse. Frankly, the fewer EOs any POTUS issues the better since each one expands the reach of the executive branch at the expense of the others.

Re: America’s system of checks and balances might struggle to contain a despot

#20
Might? They've been struggling since the Bush Administration ushered forth an era of warrantless wiretaps and black sites.

My biggest criticism of Obama has always been his lax attitude towards the War in Terror infrastructure: NSA mass surveillance; drone strikes against American citizens in countries we are not at war with; the unaccountable FISA court, to name a few.

Obama gave his successor a loaded gun. I was uncomfortable with Obama handling it, much less anybody else.

Post reply on HN