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

Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 311 posts

Re: Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?

#261

Post by dani__german »

mmooss wrote: post #183
dani__german wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To show that these questions have been asked before, and when the social issue at stake is one that leftists champion, very very few on the left are willing to stand up to presidential authority in any way. When the same exact power is used in a way that leftists by fiat deem "bad", there is no limit of the amount of pettiness, name calling, obstruction, and general ill will they will put to use to stop the president…

There is no comparable president on the left, or from any part of the political spectrum. > Thats the way to be a principled loser, and be called all sorts of names in the process. Your argument is baseless attacks and your victimhood. Is there anything substantive that supports your claims?

baseless attacks, like calling every republican a Nazi for the last 30 years seems to have worked quite well. Proclaiming your victimhood w.r.t. an abstract "patriarchy" has also lead to significant gains in political influence.

Re: Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?

#262

Post by SpaceNugget »

eastbound wrote: post #178
treis wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is somewhat disingenuous. Something like half of the grant is handed over to the University as overhead. Much of that is legit to cover things like labs but a lot of it goes to a cover a massive amount of administrative bloat. Also, nobody really objects to the research that leads directly to stuff private industry can use. That's not what people want to cut.

[flagged]

Just to be clear, you are aware that universities are composed of more than just the sciences right?

Do you also think that biology professors should strike and protest because the first year painting classes don't utilize the scientific method?

The fact that gender studies is a liberal arts degree kind of gives away that it's not pretending to be a science.

Re: Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?

#263

Post by rayiner »

runako wrote: post #254
rayiner wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is in fact not what the Supreme Court said. It said that the President has immunity for “official acts,” just like Congress members and judges. Say a judge dismisses an indictment of an accused murderer because the police didn’t have a proper search warrant. Then the accused murderer kills someone else. That could fall within the letter of “negligent homicide” laws, but the judge can’t be prosecuted for that bec…

I agree with you here. I also think that (allegedly) ignoring federal statutes while reorganizing the government is pretty clearly an official act. So everything we are discussing is an official act. If the Executive isn’t bound to follow federal appropriations laws, there’s no principled reason why he should have to follow other federal laws. And as you show, the president has full criminal immunity as well. What ot…

> What other laws are there that might limit his conduct? I’m of the understanding that where we are now is the only potential check on Presidents going forward is impeachment and removal from office. It’s a blunt instrument, but apparently there are no other applicable mechanisms.

The primary check on the President is elections, not “the law.” Secondarily, there’s impeachment, and Congress’s power of the purse. Those are the main checks on the executive.

We have this 20th century conception of “the rule of law,” where we imagine this neutral, independent “justice system” as the base layer on top of which the elected branches operate. Like the lowest level of an operating system kernel. But if you look at the debates at the constitutional convention, and read the federalist papers and anti-federalist papers, that’s not the system the founders actually created. The founders didn’t trust anyone to neutrally enforce the law. You won’t find anywhere in those primary sources where the founders envisioned some “rule of law” where private litigants use the court to micromanage executive policy.

Instead, what we have is a game of rock-paper-scissors, where no branch is assumed to be “independent” and no branch is a “base layer of the operating system.” Courts can declare the law, but can’t force the President to do something. But if the President doesn’t listen to the court, he can be voted out of office, or impeached, or Congress can withhold funding for the administration. That is a complete system of checks and balances as it is.

Re: Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?

#264

Post by [deleted] »

runako wrote: post #259
xyzzyz wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are all kinds of laws that limit president's conduct, but the point is that there is no way to actually enforce these laws, other than voluntary compliance by the president and his government, and impeachment by legislature. This is by design, that's how the separation of powers works.

These is a different way of stating my point that the President is not bound by laws, only politics.

[deleted]

Re: Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?

#265

Post by rayiner »

snickerbockers wrote: post #44
Kapura wrote: post #11

This framing conveniently ignores the question of whether the president should have the authority to single-handedly withhold funding for universities, broadly considered to be one of the foundational pillars of America's strength in the 20th century. While I think it's interesting and answers the specific question it raises, it's wild that the economist has just accepted that the president has dictatorial powers.

America is a democracy, not a bureaucracy. The executive branch is governed by a single representative elected by the people. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the people didn't make a great choice this time but our constitutional republic is also one of the foundational pillars of american strength and trump being an idiot doesn't change that. The judicial branch has authority to stop him but they're only su…

> America is a democracy, not a bureaucracy

What a turn of phrase! Love it.

Re: Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?

#266

Post by rayiner »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #134
boothby wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Statute can absolutely constrain the executive. This is an open question. The judicial branch has authority, on paper. But without means of enforcing that authority, it cannot truly constrain the executive.

Congress has a jail. He's already refused to answer to a subpoena. They can arrest him any time they want.

Congress’s big hammer is impeachment. The smaller hammer is refusing to fund his administration. Between that and elections, that’s plenty of ways to keep the president in check.

Re: Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?

#267

Post by xyzzyz »

otterley wrote: post #248
foxglacier wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like Harvard and those other universities might have been pushing the boundaries. Was the discrimination required or just allowed? The court for Grutter seemed to say it was "required" and for Bakke a "compelling state interest", but I might not understand the meaning of that properly. There are universities that don't discriminate (UC?) and they somehow get away with it. If you were running Harvard and tryi…

It's important to understand the context in which these laws and Constitutional amendments were written. They were designed and enacted after the Civil War (in the case of the Fourteenth Amendment) and the 1960s (Civil Rights Act, once we determined the Fourteenth Amendment was insufficient) to prevent Black people from being discriminated against. At the time, nobody, including the authors, considered these laws to…

At the time, nobody, including the authors, considered these laws to be a shield to protect white and Asian people from discrimination.

This is very much false, and can be easily refuted by reading what the lawmakers were saying as the law was being passed. For example, here's from the DoJ's memorandum, as quoted on the Senate floor by Senator Clark:

> "Finally, it has been asserted that title VII would impose a requirement for 'racial balance.' This is incorrect. There is no provision . . . in title VII .. .that requires or authorizes any Federal agency or Federal court to require preferential treatment for any individual or any group for the purpose of achieving racial balance. . . . No employer is required to maintain any ratio of Negroes to whites .... On the contrary, any deliberate attempt to maintain a given balance would almost certainly run afoul of title VII because it would involve a failure or refusal to hire some individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. What title VII seeks to accomplish, what the civil rights bill seeks to accomplish is equal treatment for all."

This explicitly says that you cannot have a racial quota, because it would be against Title VII of the proposed Civil Rights Act, meaning that the lawmakers proposing the bill explicitly said that the Title VII will protect whites (and all other races) as well as blacks.

Re: Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?

#268

Post by rayiner »

epistasis wrote: post #99
snickerbockers wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America is a democracy, not a bureaucracy. The executive branch is governed by a single representative elected by the people. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the people didn't make a great choice this time but our constitutional republic is also one of the foundational pillars of american strength and trump being an idiot doesn't change that. The judicial branch has authority to stop him but they're only su…

If a presidential candidate promises to break the law in his campaign, that does not give him the authority to break the law. We are a constitutional republic and the constitution must be followed. It's quite clear that the current President does not give a damn about the constitution, know anything about it, or have any compunction about blatant violation of the constitution. > Otherwise, all authority in the execut…

> > Otherwise, all authority in the executive branch effectively belongs to the president and random midlevel bureaucrats can only exercise it on his behalf.

> This is factually wrong.

It’s literally the first sentence of Article II! “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Article II doesn’t even talk about an “executive branch.” It assigns powers and responsibilities to the President.

It’s an extremely easy to understand structure that has been obfuscated during the 20th century. The constitutional actors are: the President, the 100 senators and 435 Congressmen, the 9 Justices, and Article III judges. They hold all the powers of their respective offices.

Can Congress appoint employees to be part of the Supreme Court, and provide for them to exercise judicial powers independently of the Justices? Of course not! Can Congress delegate to a staff of employees the power to make laws independently of the Congressmen? No! Obviously not! That would be absurd.

The executive branch isn’t any different.

Re: Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?

#269

Post by runako »

rayiner wrote: post #263
runako wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you here. I also think that (allegedly) ignoring federal statutes while reorganizing the government is pretty clearly an official act. So everything we are discussing is an official act. If the Executive isn’t bound to follow federal appropriations laws, there’s no principled reason why he should have to follow other federal laws. And as you show, the president has full criminal immunity as well. What ot…

> What other laws are there that might limit his conduct? I’m of the understanding that where we are now is the only potential check on Presidents going forward is impeachment and removal from office. It’s a blunt instrument, but apparently there are no other applicable mechanisms. The primary check on the President is elections, not “the law.” Secondarily, there’s impeachment, and Congress’s power of the purse. Thos…

> The primary check on the President is elections, not “the law.” Secondarily, there’s impeachment, and Congress’s power of the purse.

Right, that's where this discussion started. What we are looking at right now is the erosion of that second piece, Congress's power of the purse. The Constitutional checks and balances (not the 20th-century stuff you detail) doesn't work as well without this key Article I power. I have not seen it explained under what principle this power of Congress has been arrogated instead to the Executive.

Re: Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?

#270

Post by rayiner »

DrillShopper wrote: post #162
dcrazy wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that opinion would have been less controversial if the President hadn’t openly advertised his intent to violate the law repeatedly. It’s not like the courts are rendered powerless if the President violates the law; any judgments they render are still binding on the parties, even if they require the parties act in ways contrary to the executive’s interpretation of the law. That still means something as long pe…

It also would have been much less controversial that, when asked, the Trump lawyer during oral arguments specifically dodged the question if the president can deploy Seal Team 6 to kill a political opponent. That choice is very telling as to what the next steps probably are, and none of them are good for this country.

The majority’s response to that is far more compelling than the dissent’s Seal Team Six hypothetical:

> The dissents’ positions in the end boil down to ignoring the Constitution’s separation of powers and the Court’s precedent and instead fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President “feels empowered to violate federal criminal law.” Post, at 18 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.); see post, at 26, 29–30; post, at 8–9, 10, 12, 16, 20–21 (opinion of JACKSON, J.). The dissents overlook the more likely prospect of an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive President free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next. For instance, Section 371—which has been charged in this case—is a broadly worded criminal statute that can cover “‘any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government.’” United States v. Johnson, 383 U. S. 169, 172 (1966) (quoting Haas v. Henkel, 216 U. S. 462, 479 (1910)). Virtually every President is criticized for insufficiently enforcing some aspect of federal law (such as drug, gun, immigration, or environmental laws).

Look at section 371! If President didn’t have immunity for official acts, Trump could easily have relied on that broad statute to prosecute him for opening the border and thus “impairing” the function of ICE. Our criminal laws are breathtakingly broad in their wording, and a contrary ruling from the Supreme Court would’ve meant that the Presidency would become subordinate to prosecutors.

Post reply on HN