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

Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 128 posts

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#111

Post by krapp »

miyoji wrote: post #90
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #2

Five Constitutional amendments we need: 1. Strike pardon power; 2. First sentence of Article II changed to: “The President shall execute the laws of the United States of America”; 3. Abolish the electoral college; 4. Congress may regulate money in politics; and 5. Congress may create independent agencies with charters of up to 25 years. (President still names and Senate still confirms appointments. But they can be in…

Why don't we just eat the entire elephant and abolish the Presidency?

The US might actually do better with a parliamentary system. We could even change the Presidency to an actual monarchy, since that seems to be what many Americans really want, but as a ceremonial position only.

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#112

Post by rho138 »

ndriscoll wrote: post #85
krunck wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares about campaigning? It's whats happens after the election that matters: Does the representative represent their constituents? That's not an electoral system issue. Each eligible voter should get one vote of equal weight to all others. The EC breaks that.

The EC doesn't "break" equal weights. The US is not a direct democracy; it's a federation of states. The states (semi-sovereign entities) get votes, not people. This is an explicit, intentional design decision. If anything, we probably need to better subdivide states, and in several cases, at this point large metros (e.g. LA or NYC) should probably become city-states with direct representation in Congress but a loss…

Even more taxation without representation, nice.

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#113

Post by ndriscoll »

rho138 wrote: post #112
ndriscoll wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EC doesn't "break" equal weights. The US is not a direct democracy; it's a federation of states. The states (semi-sovereign entities) get votes, not people. This is an explicit, intentional design decision. If anything, we probably need to better subdivide states, and in several cases, at this point large metros (e.g. LA or NYC) should probably become city-states with direct representation in Congress but a loss…

Even more taxation without representation, nice.

Having to contribute 3 months out of every year to a government that gives you a proper, even 1/250,000,000 say in how many more wars it starts isn't really any more comforting. The solution to that is more localized governance to limit the impact of all the crazies you live among, not a more direct democracy.

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#114

Post by apparent »

atmavatar wrote: post #103
apparent wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No chance 3 ever passes, and a wealth tax would require an amendment unless it is "apportioned among the states" or some such thing (and it can't be because wealthy people are concentrated in a handful of states). Editing to add: It would also be a bad idea to abolish the EC because then candidates would only ever campaign in cities. They would completely ignore rural areas, which are financially and culturally diffe…

> It would also be a bad idea to abolish the EC because then candidates would only ever campaign in cities. As opposed to campaigning exclusively in the half-dozen swing states that matter?

At least those states have a mix of urban/rural/suburban areas. If there were no EC, Dems would campaign exclusively in cities.

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#115

Post by apparent »

the_sleaze_ wrote: post #107
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #25

The mental gymnastics that jurists attempt to go through to justify their rulings as "principled" in some sense is just baffling to me. The right railed against "judicial activism" for years, but it is plainly obvious that is what is happening here (overturning precedent after precedent solely based on their current feelings), especially by giving credence to the "unitary executive" theory that obviously makes separa…

Please don't forget the gifts and donations the judges receive because "Until recently, the judiciary’s ethics guidance didn’t explicitly address the ownership issue." > If Thomas had chartered the plane and the 162-foot yacht himself, the total cost of the trip could have exceeded $500,000 https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-un...

Are you of the opinion that he would decide cases differently if not for those gifts? Because the general consensus is that Thomas is one of the most ideologically pure justices (whether one thinks his ideology is good or bad). I've not seen anyone identify even a single case where his vote seems to coincide with a benefactor, but not his typical ideology.

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#116

Post by ethbr1 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #101
ethbr1 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The benefit of vesting a power in the executive is unity of purpose (regardless of what administration is in power). The benefit of Congress is slowing and deliberating over knee-jerk decisions. Having the President initiate and Congress approve plays to the strengths of both offices.

> Having the President initiate and Congress approve plays to the strengths of both offices Which wastes everyone’s time. If a case merits pardon, amend the law that convicted them in the first place.

Requiring two incentive-misaligned parties to mutually agree to effect a serious outcome was one of the Constitution's more durable controls.

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#117

Post by kcplate »

apparent wrote: post #13
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #2

Five Constitutional amendments we need: 1. Strike pardon power; 2. First sentence of Article II changed to: “The President shall execute the laws of the United States of America”; 3. Abolish the electoral college; 4. Congress may regulate money in politics; and 5. Congress may create independent agencies with charters of up to 25 years. (President still names and Senate still confirms appointments. But they can be in…

No chance 3 ever passes, and a wealth tax would require an amendment unless it is "apportioned among the states" or some such thing (and it can't be because wealthy people are concentrated in a handful of states). Editing to add: It would also be a bad idea to abolish the EC because then candidates would only ever campaign in cities. They would completely ignore rural areas, which are financially and culturally diffe…

> No chance 3 ever passes

No chance any ever passes. Amendment’s are difficult to pass by design.

The equal rights amendment which virtually nobody actually really opposes in theory in 2026 has been bantered around for 103 years as a concept and 54 years after congress approved it and sent it for ratification. Its close, but still no cigar. This is an amendment that is hardly controversial bit still cannot manage to be passed due to procedural issues and set deadlines being missed.

Now consider just how much effort and how long a controversial amendment would take…

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#118

Post by keernan »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #2

Five Constitutional amendments we need: 1. Strike pardon power; 2. First sentence of Article II changed to: “The President shall execute the laws of the United States of America”; 3. Abolish the electoral college; 4. Congress may regulate money in politics; and 5. Congress may create independent agencies with charters of up to 25 years. (President still names and Senate still confirms appointments. But they can be in…

SCOTUS is the fly in the ointment with Constitutional Amendments.

The Bill of Rights were intended to restrict government action. When there were exceptions, the wording of the Bill of Rights made them clear. The Bill of Rights were intended to be absolute things the government never could do.

That is not how they work today. SCOTUS has changed the Bill of Rights to require citizens to affirmatively assert them and has ruled that citizens can consent to permit the government to engage in activities the Bill of Rights made clear were prohibited.

As a result, our lives are very different than what was originally intended. Today when the police pull you over for a traffic stop, the police engage in conversations they learn in police training - conversations that are explicitly intended to lead to the driver waiving his constitution rights - rights that were intended to be absolute unaidable automatic restrictions upon government conduct.

SCOTUS will always be the fly in the ointment.

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#119

Post by JumpCrisscross »

keernan wrote: post #118
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #2

Five Constitutional amendments we need: 1. Strike pardon power; 2. First sentence of Article II changed to: “The President shall execute the laws of the United States of America”; 3. Abolish the electoral college; 4. Congress may regulate money in politics; and 5. Congress may create independent agencies with charters of up to 25 years. (President still names and Senate still confirms appointments. But they can be in…

SCOTUS is the fly in the ointment with Constitutional Amendments. The Bill of Rights were intended to restrict government action. When there were exceptions, the wording of the Bill of Rights made them clear. The Bill of Rights were intended to be absolute things the government never could do. That is not how they work today. SCOTUS has changed the Bill of Rights to require citizens to affirmatively assert them and h…

What’s your proposed solution?

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#120

Post by KaiserPro »

apparent wrote: post #96
KaiserPro wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean yes, but the bigger issue is that the 14th amendment only survived by one fucking vote. The supreme court is one vote away from not upholding the constitution.

> the 14th amendment only survived by one fucking vote. Slavery was almost brought back? Or are you referring to the birthright citizenship case, which involves an ancillary aspect of the 14th amendment?

If you're not reading primary sources, I don't know what to say. the 14th amendment only has 5 sections, none of which are about banning slavery. They are there to make sure that states can't disenfranchise people based on who their parents are.

But for your benefit: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/

> which involves an ancillary aspect of the 14th amendment?

SECTION 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Its 25% of the entire amendment. Its not ancillary. The point of it was to allow the emancipated slaves to actually have citizenship. Otherwise not only would they have not been able to vote in the states that they were born in, neither would their kids, as their children would not have been US citizens.

Post reply on HN