Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 60 posts

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

#51

Post by eumoria »

apo wrote: post #25

Bruce Ackerman, whose work was cited in the article, gave a dead-on analysis of the current situation in 2011: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7lCgKfxmuQ He appears to be discussing certain points in his book, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic. Here are a few: - The rise of a dual-election system for president increases the likelihood of an extremist president. Imagine a political spectrum ranging from 1…

The rise of the military as a check (or aid) to presidential power (think Turkey) is one thing that I strongly believe can't happen in this country not solely in a legal sense but military personnel won't be used in force against citizens they will simply refuse to.

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

#52

Post by ConceptJunkie »

maxlybbert wrote: post #37
mtgx wrote: post #21

Congress is supposed to be a check on that power. However, because of the systematic corruption of money, Congress is full of compliant and easily bought politicians, though, thus leaving few that would actually have the willingness to fight a despot.

The only way to get money out of politics is to stop making it a worthwhile investment. As long as people can turn a profit, they will be willing to spend money to get in line.

That will never happen until the power of the Federal government is rolled back to its strictly enumerated powers as intended by the framers. That, unfortunately, isn't going to happen any time soon unless an Article V convention starts whittling away at the last century of overreach.

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

#53

Post by rabboRubble »

DonaldFrump wrote: post #44
nilkn wrote: post #23

The power of the Presidency has been slowly expanded over the last few centuries. Each time, when the power was expanded, it was done so under a President who seemed reasonable enough that nobody was afraid of what the change truly meant. They knew that their current President wouldn't abuse it, and they didn't think much further ahead than that. Many of these expansions of power were made for very short-term politic…

I warned my conservative friends of this under Bush. I warned my liberal friends of this under Obama. Neither cared so long as their guy was in power, and both whined about every expansion of power when the other guy was in office. For the majority, no lessons will be learned.

Me too :(

I have been encouraging people to up their security game. Finally got a bunch of people on Signal so that it is meaningful communications tool for me.

We have handed a man who appears mentally unstable, the ability to switch on a vast domestic surveillance network. The only thing that stands in his way are people trained under Bush / Obama to follow procedure. As this weekend's the immigration debacle proves, procedures are only as meaningful as the "small" people called upon to uphold.

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

#54

Post by ben010783 »

eumoria wrote: post #51
apo wrote: post #25

Bruce Ackerman, whose work was cited in the article, gave a dead-on analysis of the current situation in 2011: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7lCgKfxmuQ He appears to be discussing certain points in his book, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic. Here are a few: - The rise of a dual-election system for president increases the likelihood of an extremist president. Imagine a political spectrum ranging from 1…

The rise of the military as a check (or aid) to presidential power (think Turkey) is one thing that I strongly believe can't happen in this country not solely in a legal sense but military personnel won't be used in force against citizens they will simply refuse to.

I wouldn't assume that. The Kent State shootings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings) and Bloody Sunday (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selma_to_Montgomery_marches) are enough to convince me that it is possible. Additionally, the current president had strong support in the military and police (estimates have him winning their votes with a margin of over 10%).

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

#55

Post by bdavisx »

jacquesm wrote: post #28
bradleyankrom wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree that this doesn't warrant flagging. Thanks for re-posting. As an American who regularly travels within and beyond our borders, I've developed similar feelings about the protocol for security checks in the US. Getting the full-body patdown is awkward, taking off jackets, belts, shoes, etc. and then putting them back on in front of a throng of people borders on humiliating for someone with anxiety issues.

I lost a pair of boots on the way to a meeting on an internal flight in the US. It really can get quite crazy. (And no, steel tipped boots are not weapons but a safety device and are very common in rural areas). You could argue about my dress sense, but to confiscate my boots is just nuts.

I wouldn't be surprised if the boots fit the person that confiscated them -- or someone else who was working that day. Are they really supposed to not be allowed?

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

#56

Post by jacquesm »

bdavisx wrote: post #55
jacquesm wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lost a pair of boots on the way to a meeting on an internal flight in the US. It really can get quite crazy. (And no, steel tipped boots are not weapons but a safety device and are very common in rural areas). You could argue about my dress sense, but to confiscate my boots is just nuts.

I wouldn't be surprised if the boots fit the person that confiscated them -- or someone else who was working that day. Are they really supposed to not be allowed?

> Are they really supposed to not be allowed?

From Canada (Sault Ste Marie) to Minneapolis it wasn't a problem, but on the connecting flight to San Francisco it was.

And in a way that's the problem: these rules are quite selectively/randomly enforced and even if there is paragraph somewhere that allows them explicitly I never even thought of challenging the official handed over my boots and bought a pair of new shoes on arrival in San Francisco. (Try finding a pair of shoes that early in the morning...)

So you're probably right, even so I'm not stupid enough to start a fight with a TSA guy and end up in more trouble than it is worth and they probably abuse that when they can get away with it (foreigners).

Their rules include something like 'The final decision rests with the TSA officer' so good luck challenging that.

They settle cases for millions each year where TSA employees were caught stealing from passengers.

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

#57

Post by some_guy_there »

eumoria wrote: post #51
apo wrote: post #25

Bruce Ackerman, whose work was cited in the article, gave a dead-on analysis of the current situation in 2011: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7lCgKfxmuQ He appears to be discussing certain points in his book, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic. Here are a few: - The rise of a dual-election system for president increases the likelihood of an extremist president. Imagine a political spectrum ranging from 1…

The rise of the military as a check (or aid) to presidential power (think Turkey) is one thing that I strongly believe can't happen in this country not solely in a legal sense but military personnel won't be used in force against citizens they will simply refuse to.

It definitely will (refuse orders), especially if Trump gives an at-face unconstitutional order (say shooting the protesters at Dakota pipeline). In normal times, the Congress will impeach the President, removing him from office. But as norms erode, that might not be the case.

The officers of US Armed forces take an oath for the constitution, and not the President. Now for this special case right now, military refusing orders will be a "good" thing. But in long run, it only means that civilian institution have eroded so far that having military deciding what is constitutional might appear to be a "good thing". So the idea isn't that military personal will use force against citizens, but rather they will not, and that will erode the system regardless.

That never has been the case yet. While the President after as President has tried to stretch his authority (while Congress receded), we haven't reached a point of resistance from extra-governmental organizations. But that's the logical direction where this is headed.

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

#58

Post by jacquesm »

big_youth wrote: post #48
lineindc wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no stakes in here (I'm not American), but as far as I know, he's just doing what he promised he'd do if he got elected. What you're asking for is... to protect people from themselves? I don't understand.

In my social circles we are ecstatic that Trump is following through on his promises.

I suspect your social circles will end up paying dis-proportionally once the bill for Trumps promises arrives.

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

#60

Post by eumoria »

ben010783 wrote: post #54
eumoria wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rise of the military as a check (or aid) to presidential power (think Turkey) is one thing that I strongly believe can't happen in this country not solely in a legal sense but military personnel won't be used in force against citizens they will simply refuse to.

I wouldn't assume that. The Kent State shootings ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings ) and Bloody Sunday ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selma_to_Montgomery_marches ) are enough to convince me that it is possible. Additionally, the current president had strong support in the military and police (estimates have him winning their votes with a margin of over 10%).

Those are good points... I guess was just implying more along the lines of a larger scale citizens oppression a la rounding up people on a national scale. Kent or the march are akin to police shootings that we still currently have happening as far as scale/injuries but I guess that's being semantic.

Riots (even imposed by the people there to "control them") will always be difficult, confusing, awful situations. However the hyperbole of this problem being akin to Nazi Germany bothers me. Our military would simply tell a President to go get fucked before they would round up US citizens.

Post reply on HN