Hacker News Reader

Comment by boothby | Hacker News Reader

Obama certainly did his part in strengthening executive power and your attention to the role that Democrats played in this is well deserved. This whataboutism, however, does not absolve the Republicans who are pushing the Unitary Executive theory -- of which a monarchy is the ultimate expression. Therefore, the name "no kings" -- a catchy title that captures the undeniable thrust of the founding of the USA and warns of the end of the slope our country is accelerating down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory

View on HN

I don't necessarily see this about whataboutism if the people making claims support another person or party that has the same faults that they are claiming.

That is a rather misguided and hyperbolic view of unitary executive theory. The president would still be elected and bounded by the constitution.

That’s a rather naive view of unitary executive theory if you look at how it’s actually been used. The people pushing it say they are not bound by the Constitution, because part of the theory, which was advanced during a Trump’s first impeachment trial, is that if the President does it, it can’t be a crime. He was acquitted under that theory. Moreover, he argued the proper venue for accountability is the courts. But in court, he argued the proper venue for accountability was impeachment. SCOTUS essentially agreed with that.

So when you say “bound by the Constitution” what you really mean is bound by being able to sway 10 senators from his own party. So… not exactly bound is it, considering he’s already shown he’s willing to arrest his political opponents (and under unitary executive theory it’s within his power to do so)

Do you see benefit in giving more power to those elected by the people than the people who aren't elected? This actually seems like the more democratic approach. Though I think to handle too much sudden change, some limits should be imposed, but not sure what that limit should be.

They of course are bounded by the constitution and haven't claimed otherwise. The court decides if something is unconstitutional and I do think impeachment is certainly a venue for accountability as well

> Do you see benefit in giving more power to those elected by the people than the people who aren't elected?

Yes. In a representative democracy, a plurality of views are represented in government, enabling checks and balances to prevent arbitrary and corrupt governance. When the president is allowed to eviscerate independent bodies and replace their leadership and fill their ranks with loyalists, you get further and further from an expression of the will of the people and closer and closer to totalitarianism.

Russia is a nominal democracy. Putin is the elected leader. He enjoys unchecked power, of which Trump is nakedly envious. Do you think that Russia’s approach is "more democratic" than that of the US because of the strength of its executive?

I have similar reservations, though some balance between these options is probably the most reasonable.

The please take time to understand the aims of Project 2025. If you think through the implications and understand the Supreme Court’s recent rulings on executive power, you might find the No Kings protest to be quite reasonable. Because those in power are not looking for "balance" in any meaning of the word

You say they're unelected as if they weren't put there by people who were elected, or they're not wanted. When I vote for my representative, I undertand their job is to lobby for the interest of people in my community. That representation ideally results in a law or some other formal instruction which is the product of a compromise between competing interests.

If one of those competing interests can just become president and then blow up any and all compromises whenever he wants, that is a recipe for instability, as the next guy who comes in will do the same, and then no one gets what they want.

This is why unitary executive is a terrible idea, it incentivizes every executive to become a dictator because the moment they're out everything flips immediately. This is why I think for the people pushing it, dictatorship is the actual goal, because there's no theory for how their unitary executive creates stability without permanent power.

His job is to execute the laws the Congress passes, not to substitute his own judgement for Congress' when it comes to the laws he wants to execute. He has to execute them all, and that includes funding agencies he personally disagrees with but we all want to work. It's not his country.

> some limits should be imposed, but not sure what that limit should be.

What exactly are those limits and how would they be enforced? If the limit is a law Congress writes, then the executive can just choose to not enforce it. And even if they could enforce it, who would enforce it? His AG, who under UET is essentially an extension of the President?

I think that is a reasonable critique. Though I don’t think that it will lead to a dictatorship. If that is your concern I can certainly see why you are so against it. Though we already have the president’s cabinet needing senate approval similar to these other appointments. So I see that as being the checks and balances of this power.

> Though we already have the president’s cabinet needing senate approval similar to these other appointments.

The attitude of the Senate during cabinet approvals is always "A president deserves to get the cabinet officials he wants". There are limits, which is why accused sex trafficker Matt Gaetz did not become AG. But that didn't stop a former weekend talk show host from becoming the Secretary of Defense. (wannabe dictators love elevating unqualified people to important positions, because those people understand they could never have that position otherwise, and therefore exhibit more loyalty when asked to do things that are unscrupulous. In no world is Peter Hegseth qualified to run the DOD except in Trump's circus)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com