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

The Case That Could Destroy the Government

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 85 posts

Re: The Case That Could Destroy the Government

#31

Post by claytongulick »

jeffbee wrote: post #25
claytongulick wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Atlantic seems to have a pronounced political bias. I am occasionally pleasantly surprised by some of their reporting, but I've mostly found the quality (or lack thereof) to be roughly on par with this article.

The "Ideas" section of the Atlantic is the least doctrinaire of all. They run all kinds of stuff in there. It's almost like a blog aggregator. You'll note this is the author's first contribution to the magazine.

Thanks for mentioning that, I wasn't aware.

It helps explain some of the variation I see there.

Re: The Case That Could Destroy the Government

#32

Post by chrisco255 »

jjulius wrote: post #28
chrisco255 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original article is just that. "Destroying the government" is emotional hyperbole, and beyond disingenuous.

At least it takes the time to expand on that idea rather than just tossing it out flippantly, eg GP.

It doesn't expand on that idea. It starts with a a click bait title and then it devolves from there. The government will survive, society will not collapse, chaos will not reign, the sky will not fall.

Re: The Case That Could Destroy the Government

#33

Post by klooney »

shrubble wrote: post #11

It's not very well-argued, in that if regulation was pervasive since the founding as the author states, then what would unwinding something from the New Deal era accomplish in the grand scheme of things?

The New Deal was a pretty big deal- it did a lot to transition the US to a centralized enough state to accomplish what we generally regard as the duties of a modern state. A ton of what made it work was the Executive and Legislative branches bullying the (normally a bulwark of conservatism) Judicial into acquiescing.

Since the end of the Warren court, the Judicial branch has been chipping away at the ground they lost, and I guess this would continue that process.

Before people come yell at me, I want to be very clear about the is/ought distinction here- we ought to have a centralized government, it isn't particularly compatible with the constitution as currently constructed.

Re: The Case That Could Destroy the Government

#34

Post by thaumasiotes »

nwiswell wrote: post #19
thaumasiotes wrote: post #2

The image heading this article shows traditional Greek-style marble columns toppling over as if they are rigid single objects. Greek columns can't topple like that because they aren't single objects. They are built of horizontal sections in a vertical stack. In Imperial Rome, the very most prestigious kind of column was a rather ugly type made of Egyptian granite. Columns like this were prestigious because they were…

The Doric columns in the Old Supreme Court chamber were monolithic marble. I hadn't expected the visual metaphor to be so literally applicable! https://www.aoc.gov/explore-capitol-campus/buildings-grounds...

Your link doesn't appear to mention any columns that aren't sandstone? It also doesn't say whether those columns were monolithic or not.

Re: The Case That Could Destroy the Government

#35

Post by rayiner »

klooney wrote: post #33
shrubble wrote: post #11

It's not very well-argued, in that if regulation was pervasive since the founding as the author states, then what would unwinding something from the New Deal era accomplish in the grand scheme of things?

The New Deal was a pretty big deal- it did a lot to transition the US to a centralized enough state to accomplish what we generally regard as the duties of a modern state. A ton of what made it work was the Executive and Legislative branches bullying the (normally a bulwark of conservatism) Judicial into acquiescing. Since the end of the Warren court, the Judicial branch has been chipping away at the ground they lost…

> The New Deal was a pretty big deal- it did a lot to transition the US to a centralized enough state to accomplish what we generally regard as the duties of a modern state

Centralization is not necessary for governments to provide the services of a modern state. Sweden manages to provide all the functionality of a modern state, and has about the same population as North Carolina. Even then, the majority of Swedish government spending actually happens at the county and municipal level.

What the Constitution resists is turning the federal government into the level of government that’s responsible for providing all these services.

Re: The Case That Could Destroy the Government

#36

Post by r00fus »

rayiner wrote: post #17

It’s better to read the SCOTUSblog coverage without the editorializing: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/securities-and-e... . The issues in the case are: > 1) Whether statutory provisions that empower the Securities and Exchange Commission to initiate and adjudicate administrative enforcement proceedings seeking civil penalties violate the Seventh Amendment; (2) whether statutory provisions that authorize…

The Supreme Court sure seems like they want to challenge everything that Congress or the Executive branch executes. They threaten to do so publicly.

Congress ought to likewise threaten to pass laws that have allow no judicial review or the President should threaten to reform the Court. Both are explicitly allowed in the Constitution.

Re: The Case That Could Destroy the Government

#37

Post by remarkEon »

r00fus wrote: post #36
rayiner wrote: post #17

It’s better to read the SCOTUSblog coverage without the editorializing: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/securities-and-e... . The issues in the case are: > 1) Whether statutory provisions that empower the Securities and Exchange Commission to initiate and adjudicate administrative enforcement proceedings seeking civil penalties violate the Seventh Amendment; (2) whether statutory provisions that authorize…

The Supreme Court sure seems like they want to challenge everything that Congress or the Executive branch executes. They threaten to do so publicly. Congress ought to likewise threaten to pass laws that have allow no judicial review or the President should threaten to reform the Court. Both are explicitly allowed in the Constitution.

>The Supreme Court sure seems like they want to challenge everything that Congress or the Executive branch executes. They threaten to do so publicly.

So, working as intended then.

Re: The Case That Could Destroy the Government

#38

Post by nradov »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #30
nradov wrote: post #27

It's so bizarre that this article considers forcing the Federal government to operate within legal limits to be terrifying. This is not an actual problem. If there is a legitimate need for more governmental authority then that can be addressed through the defined legislative process.

The laws and procedures the court is undoing here were all adopted through the defined legislative process, and could have been adjusted through the defined legislative process if voters’ representatives wanted that done. These court rulings will just limit Congress’s power to execute the will of the voters.

It is far more important to operate within Constitutional limits than to execute the will of the voters. We shouldn't allow the tyranny of the majority.

Re: The Case That Could Destroy the Government

#39

Post by nradov »

jmyeet wrote: post #24

This Supreme Court is, and always has been, political. The idea of the "textualist" or "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution as a philosophy is just propaganda invented in the 1980s shortly after the Federalist Society was founded. This court seems determined to overturn Chevron [1], which is the basis for deference given to administrative bodies empowered by Congress, the so-called "administrative state"…

Why doesn't Congress have the bandwidth to decide fish quotas or hunting seasons or the definition of clean water? The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was 906 pages. Congress had bandwidth to deal with that. The other issues you listed are relatively simple by comparison.

Re: The Case That Could Destroy the Government

#40

Post by error_logic »

nradov wrote: post #38
matthewdgreen wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The laws and procedures the court is undoing here were all adopted through the defined legislative process, and could have been adjusted through the defined legislative process if voters’ representatives wanted that done. These court rulings will just limit Congress’s power to execute the will of the voters.

It is far more important to operate within Constitutional limits than to execute the will of the voters. We shouldn't allow the tyranny of the majority.

It is most important for the regulations and enforcement to be implemented with a focus on constructive win-win interactions.

Whether older constitutional interpretations or more centralized ones do that more effectively is ultimately determined by government officials and their incentives.

Post reply on HN