Most active commenters
  • (9)
  • rayiner(6)
  • lazide(4)
  • ujkhsjkdhf234(4)
  • jfengel(3)
  • triknomeister(3)
  • kergonath(3)

←back to thread

240 points anigbrowl | 133 comments | | HN request time: 2.272s | source | bottom
1. jleyank ◴[] No.44611189[source]
It's really depressing how the US system seems to have existed "on belief". Once somebody set out to damage or destroy it, away it went. Pretty much without a whimper.

As I recall, the system was set up with 3 branches of government in tension. Obviously, that was naive.

replies(19): >>44611243 #>>44611251 #>>44611274 #>>44611292 #>>44611294 #>>44611300 #>>44611372 #>>44611468 #>>44612747 #>>44612970 #>>44613048 #>>44613100 #>>44613128 #>>44613243 #>>44613469 #>>44613869 #>>44615093 #>>44616024 #>>44616939 #
2. jabjq ◴[] No.44611243[source]
The system has existed on the taxpayer. Now the taxpayer has voted to get rid of it.
replies(2): >>44611285 #>>44612519 #
3. lazide ◴[] No.44611251[source]
All systems exist ‘on belief’. And it’s objectively done better than all other known systems it has been running concurrently with (in both longevity and impact).
replies(2): >>44611271 #>>44612924 #
4. pinkmuffinere ◴[] No.44611271[source]
> it’s objectively done better than all other known systems (in longevity and impact)

I think the US is probably the country which has had the greatest positive impact on the world in the last 150 years (purely a personal opinion). But even so, we’ve only been around like 300 years total. It’s crazy to say that we have _objectively_ had the biggest and longest impact, when there are civilizations that existed for so much longer, and which made massive contributions to the world.

replies(1): >>44611321 #
5. ujkhsjkdhf234 ◴[] No.44611274[source]
Republicans have been attacking government and destabilizing society for decades. This has not happened overnight and it won't be fixed overnight.
replies(1): >>44614404 #
6. ujkhsjkdhf234 ◴[] No.44611285[source]
The taxpayer was lied to repeatedly and under the belief of many many many lies, unwittingly voted to get rid of it.
replies(2): >>44611293 #>>44611488 #
7. ergonaught ◴[] No.44611292[source]
All societies are consensus realities wholly dependent upon participation.

The system was fine but no one has yet constructed a system that can withstand weaponized mass stupidity. Even the ones created to combat corruption fail to account for this danger.

So.

replies(3): >>44611518 #>>44612892 #>>44612985 #
8. jabjq ◴[] No.44611293{3}[source]
Democracy is good until the public votes for something unpalatable. In that case they were lied to and/or they are unfit to choose for themselves.
replies(3): >>44611310 #>>44611362 #>>44612628 #
9. yieldcrv ◴[] No.44611294[source]
Many developed nations made fun of our delusional checks and balances concept for a long time

We collectively dismiss external criticism on flimsy rationales like there never being a military coup here, or even more amusingly “at least we can talk about it” as if that is good enough, or is unique to the US at all

replies(1): >>44617155 #
10. ivape ◴[] No.44611300[source]
It's really depressing how the US system seems to have existed "on belief".

Word up.

Most people that ever lived, lived under some authoritarian or unjust rule. Some lived in a full terror state. Americans are just so lucky and take so much for granted. One can ponder, “what was the moment it all happened?” - there wasn’t a moment. It’s a total frog boiling in water situation. We’ve been boiling. Taste the water, it’s frog soup. Given that this admin has 3 more years, it’ll be frog bone broth once the bones melt.

It is so fucking crazy that if you actually let the unintellectual border-line savage illiterates fulfill their chaotic fantasies that you truly do get a backward bumble fuck country. Anyway, I’m going back to my regular programming of watching Mexican farmers jump from buildings to their death as they run from ICE, and my president sell scam crypto and sneakers and shit.

Shout out to the American Dream.

replies(4): >>44611387 #>>44613204 #>>44613445 #>>44614381 #
11. ujkhsjkdhf234 ◴[] No.44611310{4}[source]
Are you saying they weren't lied to? Like Trump saying he knew nothing about Project 2025 which was a lie.
replies(1): >>44614482 #
12. lazide ◴[] No.44611321{3}[source]
You might want to re-read my comment.

I made no such long term or meta claims.

replies(1): >>44611722 #
13. intended ◴[] No.44611362{4}[source]
We can actually show that the American public are lied to, and continue to be lied to.

Yes - I can get the point you are making - “democracy for me but not for thee” is BS. Sure!

But the evidence is that theres one media network which is simply selling whatever story works, along side a 50+ year effort to kill trust in institutions. We can even show that the republican machinery gave up on bipartisanship - hell, it’s even public knowledge.

But that wouldn’t make a whit of a difference to voting patterns, or your point. Because your point doesn’t need to be based in the long history of complicated malfeasance that rots all English speaking democracies. It’s anchored in your current state and argument.

So yeah, people voted.

14. guelo ◴[] No.44611372[source]
It's not going away with a whimper, the supreme court is killing it on purpose. There are laws that created departments that the president does not have the power to destroy. There is also the impoundment act that forbid a president from redirecting or not spending appropriated money. These laws are being ignored because the supreme court has gone full partisan.

One study estimates that the Supreme Court will be "conservative" [1] for at least the next 100 years. If Dems don't try to do something to represent 50% of the country that is panicking then they're complicit.

[1] tearing down hundreds of years of precedent is not conservative, this is an extremist court.

replies(6): >>44611504 #>>44612616 #>>44612793 #>>44612934 #>>44613508 #>>44615771 #
15. patcon ◴[] No.44611387[source]
> the unintellectual border-line savage illiterates fulfill their chaotic fantasies that you truly do get a backward bumble fuck country

it's ok if you don't have energy to understand otherwise rn, but please know that there's more to it than this. to understand is the only way out that's not total war.

and yes, i'm angry too.

replies(1): >>44611480 #
16. throwawaymaths ◴[] No.44611468[source]
isn't this the separation of powers working though? for once the trump administration has waited for judicial review to act.
17. jfengel ◴[] No.44611480{3}[source]
I don't understand. And as far as the can tell, the only thing preventing total war is the belief that it might be possible to fix it next year.

And no matter who wins, the other side will be convinced it was by cheating. And that has no alternative but total war.

I have looked long and hard for an alternative but I'm not seeing one.

replies(3): >>44613167 #>>44613966 #>>44614411 #
18. throwawaymaths ◴[] No.44611488{3}[source]
well the republican party has been talking for decades about removing EPA, DOE, etc. and has gotten lots of votes on those premises, so "they" make good on that promise and now the "voter has been lied to"? you could have made the same claim if the republicabs did nothing.
replies(1): >>44612285 #
19. loeg ◴[] No.44611504[source]
> If Dems don't try to do something about to represent 50% of the country that is panicking then they're complicit.

Uh. What are they supposed to do with a Republican trifecta? Do you mean "win votes in future elections so they can govern?"

replies(1): >>44611745 #
20. ◴[] No.44611518[source]
21. pinkmuffinere ◴[] No.44611722{4}[source]
I guess I’m just missing it, I’ve re-read the thread and it still seems like you’re discussing the US? What am I missing? The parent comment you replied to is

> It's really depressing how the US system seems to have existed "on belief". Once somebody set out to damage or destroy it, away it went. Pretty much without a whimper. As I recall, the system was set up with 3 branches of government in tension. Obviously, that was naive.

replies(1): >>44611852 #
22. guelo ◴[] No.44611745{3}[source]
When they get power again they need to challenge the court's extremism. I've seen ideas like term limits or packing the court with more than 9 judges.
replies(4): >>44611867 #>>44612225 #>>44613178 #>>44614175 #
23. lazide ◴[] No.44611852{5}[source]
‘systems it has been running concurrently with’. Aka during the same times.

What other gov’t during the same time period has lasted as long or longer (none that I am aware of), let alone has produced prosperity, etc. to the same extent?

And it isn’t actually gone yet, either.

replies(2): >>44613172 #>>44613573 #
24. nerdsniper ◴[] No.44611867{4}[source]
Ideally there will be enough representation in congress to remove justices like Thomas for blatant corruption / conflict of interest.
replies(1): >>44617049 #
25. loeg ◴[] No.44612225{4}[source]
> When they get power again

Hard to see a path to Dems winning a Senate majority.

replies(1): >>44612796 #
26. beej71 ◴[] No.44612285{4}[source]
The lie is that getting rid of these agencies is a good thing.
replies(1): >>44612947 #
27. thisisit ◴[] No.44612519[source]
People who keep parroting this take are the most hypocritical bunch I have ever seen. Because if the premise is true then when these institutions existed then those were also voted by taxpayers to exist, right? But that time these “taxpayers” made noise about how government can’t be trusted and majority is muzzling their right of speech and first amendment etc etc. Now they when they are in the majority they turn around and say stuff like majority rules, government can be trusted etc.

And I know people like to play both sides so let me add. The big government hoopla exists only on one side.

replies(1): >>44613071 #
28. mandeepj ◴[] No.44612616[source]
> One study estimates that the Supreme Court will be "conservative" [1] for at least the next 100 years.

Not really. A party needs 2/3 majority to impeach a judge. There’s a possibility Democrats can have that majority after next midterms. But the problem with Democrats is that they almost always follow laws and aren’t radical lunatics like republicans. Even after last election, HN felt pretty Red leaning, so that stupidity fever caught a lot of otherwise sane people.

replies(1): >>44612981 #
29. const_cast ◴[] No.44612628{4}[source]
> unpalatable

See, this is a weasel word. Nobody said it was unpalatable, they said it was bad, because it is.

Do you want bad things to happen? No? Okay then, everyone should be on the same page.

30. refurb ◴[] No.44612747[source]
The EPA sits under the executive branch. Thus the chief executive (President) has the say on how the executive functions.

There are limitations, but if a research arm was created purely by executive power, then it can be stopped through executive power.

The system works as intended.

replies(1): >>44613346 #
31. Aloha ◴[] No.44612793[source]
I'm not a fan of this court - but what thing that was 100's of years of precedent was torn down by this court?

Yes, they've refused to do certain things until lower courts rule, but I dont see that as a huge incongruence.

replies(2): >>44613057 #>>44613428 #
32. burnt-resistor ◴[] No.44612796{5}[source]
Yep. And the House is functionally irrelevant and basically a passive onlooker.

SCOTUS legislate from the bench as instructed and POTUS decrees from a throne.

replies(1): >>44612882 #
33. galangalalgol ◴[] No.44612882{6}[source]
A majority isn't impossible, but they would have to remove the filibuster. Ideally I'd want the filibuster removed right this instant, but reinstated for judicial and really any confirmations. Let the party in power make their laws and remove old ones, but keep the judiciary independent.

Edit: When the democrats removed the filibuster for judicial confirmations they started us on this path. Predictably the Republicans responded by including the scotus. That was the end of an independent judiciary. It just took a while for it to be sufficient to kill democracy. And to be clear, no ratings agency in the world still considers the US a democracy. At years end it will be an official downgrade from flawed democracy to electoral autocracy or competitive authoritarian state.

replies(2): >>44612964 #>>44613585 #
34. echelon ◴[] No.44612892[source]
Weaponized social media. That's what wasn't predicted.
replies(2): >>44612941 #>>44613781 #
35. tbrownaw ◴[] No.44612924[source]
The Catholic Church is still around, and historically had a pretty major influence on academia.
replies(1): >>44613715 #
36. parineum ◴[] No.44612934[source]
> There are laws that created departments that the president does not have the power to destroy.

That's true but what you're leaving out is that those laws were passed by Congress to give their authority away to these agencies and give the management of them away to the executive branch.

Congress is wholly at fault for all of the power they've ceded to the executive.

Trump has the authority, granted by Congress, to appoint the people in charge of those agencies and has the authority to dictate their agenda (by appointing someone who will carry it out).

> One study estimates that the Supreme Court will be "conservative"

First of all, "one study..." isn't a great way to make a point but, regardless, "conservative" justices doesn't mean politically conservative, it means judicially conservative and that is a completely separate concept.

Trump has been ruled against several times already on judicially conservative grounds.

37. wyldfire ◴[] No.44612941{3}[source]
Maybe the abnormal thing was the century or so we had of papers/radio/TV guided by ethics or professionalism or some delicate trustworthiness-equilibrium.

And now we have returned to a state where humanity is guided by inventive stories and manipulated by propaganda.

replies(2): >>44613028 #>>44613293 #
38. tbrownaw ◴[] No.44612947{5}[source]
Saying that something is good (or bad) feels more like an "ought" statement than a proper "is" statement, ie not in a category that's capable of being a lie.
39. SwamyM ◴[] No.44612964{7}[source]
> Edit: When the democrats removed the filibuster for judicial confirmations they started us on this path. Predictably the Republicans responded by including the scotus. That was the end of an independent judiciary. It just took a while for it to be sufficient to kill democracy. And to be clear, no ratings agency in the world still considers the US a democracy. At years end it will be an official downgrade from flawed democracy to electoral autocracy or competitive authoritarian state.

While this is technically true, it conveniently ignores why the democrats removed the filibuster which is that:

    “In the history of the Republic, there have been 168 filibusters of executive and judicial nominees. Half of them have occurred during the Obama administration — during the last four and a half years,” Reid said.
Source: https://apnews.com/united-states-government-united-states-co...

As always Republicans cause a crisis and then take it to the extreme and Democrats usually end up taking the blame.

Not that they are blame free but they are also usually inept and they defer too much to 'rules and order' when the other party is not playing by the same rules.

replies(1): >>44613253 #
40. ARandomerDude ◴[] No.44612970[source]
We haven’t really followed the Constitution for about 100 years now, sadly. We pay lip service to it but it’s mostly a historical curiosity at this point.

If anyone doubts this, take a moment to read the document in one sitting. It’s remarkably short. Compare what you read to the government you’ve had all your life.

replies(4): >>44613013 #>>44613104 #>>44613505 #>>44614591 #
41. crucialfelix ◴[] No.44612981{3}[source]
Good people follow laws, bad people don't.

That's the core problem. The game is rigged

replies(1): >>44613223 #
42. a_bonobo ◴[] No.44612985[source]
Germany has learned this lesson the hard way, with a 'defensive' constitution post-1945. You don't have 100% free speech in Germany, and it is possible to make parties illegal. It's not without its issues (currently, the far-right AfD might be banned using these laws but the whole system has been dragging its feet) but it is a lesson the US should have learned after the first Trump term.

Democracies by default assumed that all players in the system are supportive of the system itself, kind of like all early Internet protocols assumed that there are no malicious users.

replies(5): >>44613200 #>>44613248 #>>44613699 #>>44613916 #>>44614029 #
43. whycome ◴[] No.44613013[source]
I’ve always thought that the electric chair would be the definition of “cruel and unusual” to the founding fathers.
44. pfannkuchen ◴[] No.44613028{4}[source]
This implies that the period with massively more centralized control of information had a truer consensus reality.

That seems… unlikely?

replies(3): >>44613058 #>>44613566 #>>44617119 #
45. asperous ◴[] No.44613048[source]
The framers noted that the system was vulnerable to a single "faction" [1]. The solution was to have many competing factions. I think first-past-the-post, corporate election influence, and mass media consolidated power into a single faction that ended up causing the system to break down (in that the branches don't seem to be checking each other's power right now).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10

replies(6): >>44613331 #>>44613351 #>>44613478 #>>44613773 #>>44614498 #>>44615357 #
46. anigbrowl ◴[] No.44613057{3}[source]
Birthright citizenship would be the issue to watch, because a previous Supreme Court ruled on the scope of the 14th amendment back in 1888 and conservatives have been aiming to reverse this for decades.
replies(1): >>44613572 #
47. neltnerb ◴[] No.44613058{5}[source]
At least they mostly felt the need to pick a single consensus reality to approximate. How well it represented common experience, well...
48. pfannkuchen ◴[] No.44613071{3}[source]
Well the behavior of agencies has changed quite a lot since that whole mechanism was voted into existence, no? Sometimes it takes awhile for the consequences of a change to play out.
replies(1): >>44613123 #
49. Loic ◴[] No.44613100[source]
It is more than depressing. During my PhD/Postdoc, we had excellent collaboration with the EPA on stuff which then really improved the life of people in the US. These agencies need to do research to stay ahead of/keep up with the development.

Context: we developed chemicals toxicity prediction models. This was 20 years ago, this allowed the EPA to quality check applications made by chemical companies.

50. exe34 ◴[] No.44613104[source]
"interstate commerce" has a lot to answer for regarding the creeping scope of the executive powers.
51. thisisit ◴[] No.44613123{4}[source]
Another smoke and mirror argument. The “majority” government which decided that these agencies should get tax payers money was there till 6 months ago. So, it has not been “awhile”.
52. colechristensen ◴[] No.44613128[source]
The key failure is Congress seems not to care to defend or execute its power. They care about getting elected and their ability do obstruct... but they barely do anything. And the republicans are apparently all terrified of the executive. The democrats are meek and assume they ought to win just for showing up because they're "right".
replies(1): >>44613197 #
53. CalRobert ◴[] No.44613167{4}[source]
Peaceful secession perhaps? Long shot but it seems like the least distasteful outcome.
54. andsoitis ◴[] No.44613172{6}[source]
> What other gov’t during the same time period has lasted as long or longer (none that I am aware of), let alone has produced prosperity, etc. to the same extent?

The constitutional system of the United Kingdom is over 1000 years old.

replies(1): >>44613222 #
55. tmountain ◴[] No.44613178{4}[source]
They won’t get power again in a meaningful way. The last election was their “last stand”. The U.S. has a rigged court and gerrymandered senate. Kamala was right about one thing, “we’re not going back”. Unfortunately, the context was wrong. In this case, it’s, “we’re not going back to being a functional democracy”.
replies(2): >>44613579 #>>44616747 #
56. nielsbot ◴[] No.44613197[source]
They care about getting re-elected, true. And are therefore vulnerable to lobbying and PAC dollars.

And therefore both parties represent corporations and the wealthy, not the voters.

57. roenxi ◴[] No.44613200{3}[source]
They didn't "learn this lesson", they had a constitution imposed on them and were basically occupied for 50 years by multiple foreign powers; even up until 2020 as I recall there were about as many active US army personnel in Germany as German ones. There isn't a hugely compelling story that the constitution is the big factor in the German journey.

It isn't possible to build a paper system that consistently resists an incompetent elite and the people deciding to re-roll the dice on a new system because the current one isn't working. Corruption creeps in and people stop following the official rules.

replies(3): >>44613273 #>>44613836 #>>44614509 #
58. tmountain ◴[] No.44613204[source]
America was always just an idea. For the idea to work, the masses need to ascribe to and appreciate it. Americans willfully took the country in this direction. It’s democracy at work but delivering a “different agenda” than many anticipated.
59. lazide ◴[] No.44613222{7}[source]
There is no plausible entity arising from that arrangement that one could refer that has survived even 1/10th of that time intact. Not even counting the devolving of numerous other additional territories.

Including the Sovereign, or Parliament.

It has kept the title, but so has France and how many Republics are they on now?

replies(1): >>44613475 #
60. nielsbot ◴[] No.44613223{4}[source]
I think it’s rather that good (effective) politicians wield the law and power effectively and creatively. Good people don’t follow bad laws, for example.

The Democrats are not good, but it’s intentional. They work for their donors not their voters.

61. triknomeister ◴[] No.44613243[source]
For what it's worth. It's a democratic decision at the end of the day. It's not one man going about it.
replies(1): >>44615246 #
62. triknomeister ◴[] No.44613248{3}[source]
Germany has the same fundamental problems. Just the symptoms are different. Look at debt brake etc. And the banning at this point is just not politically possible. It is just a legal fantasy. Over a long term, laws can only reflect the politics.

Germans believe that legalities can ensure politics be conducted in a "desired" manner when the reality is, it just causes more and more factions of the politics to be done outside the legal framework. Politics is like time, it stops for no man and no law.

63. burnt-resistor ◴[] No.44613253{8}[source]
Yep. R are using every dirty trick by treating politics like love and war, and D are treating it like a purity contest. Ultimately, though both are serving, as Gore Vidal put it, the Property party. I want fair and equal accountability, no one to be above the law, and no politician to engage in even the appearance of inappropriate, unethical behavior, or corrupt behavior; and them to get things done that advance the collective good without steamrolling over groups with sudden, huge surprises. But I want more of the good parts of a culture like Japan where people are decent and conscientious and Europe where other people are cared for besides oneself. The US is currently far, far away from anything remotely resembling healthy, long-term sustainable socioeconomic attitudes, policies, and actions.
replies(1): >>44613592 #
64. triknomeister ◴[] No.44613273{4}[source]
Germans have this false belief that if you just create the correct laws, people will follow them and system would be good. When in reality, for most people around the world, they follow laws only till it makes sense for them.
replies(1): >>44614157 #
65. oblio ◴[] No.44613293{4}[source]
You know what the weirdest thing about that century is? The Soviets.

A sort of seemingly valid communal society seemed possible so all the other capitalism based ones had competition and as a result were trying to improve the life of citizens.

I'm starting to become more and more convinced that as real fear of Communism disappeared at the top, our systems are regressing to the mean.

66. insane_dreamer ◴[] No.44613331[source]
The Founders would never have approved of Citizens United.
replies(3): >>44613353 #>>44613485 #>>44615424 #
67. insane_dreamer ◴[] No.44613346[source]
True. Doesn't make it any less stupid.
replies(1): >>44614530 #
68. adrr ◴[] No.44613351[source]
It didn’t help making senators directly elected. Makes them vulnerable to populists movements.
69. rtpg ◴[] No.44613353{3}[source]
Sure they would have! The elite of the United States that lead the revolution were all extremely mercantile and many were coming to the colonies to run their own little fiefdoms away from the crown.

One should acknowledge how many of the freedoms locked into the founding ideology of the US is pretty close to what libertarians reach out for. I don't know many libertarians arguing against Citizens United.

That isn't to say that the US can't aim for something different, and that the core of the nation today likely believes many different things.

We can choose our own destiny without trying to ascribe every good idea to what a group of people thought at the founding of the country.

70. ◴[] No.44613428{3}[source]
71. ◴[] No.44613445[source]
72. rayiner ◴[] No.44613469[source]
The EPA is in the executive branch and Americans recently hired a CEO of the executive branch that promised to cut a lot of stuff in that branch. This is entirely consistent with what you learn about american government in high school.
replies(1): >>44613555 #
73. inejge ◴[] No.44613475{8}[source]
> It has kept the title, but so has France and how many Republics are they on now?

The US has also kept the title of the Senate, but I'd argue that it's been a very different institution since the 17th Amendment. Also, the Federal govt. until the Great Depression was much more hands-off (witness the overuse of the Commerce Clause since then.)

I'm not sure that the Founders would think of the present-day Republic as the same as theirs.

74. ◴[] No.44613478[source]
75. ◴[] No.44613485{3}[source]
76. rayiner ◴[] No.44613505[source]
If we followed the constitution the EPA wouldn’t even exist! Clearly the founders didn’t create this complicated three-branch system only to have most of the government being run by “independent agencies” exercising executive, legislative, and judicial powers.
replies(1): >>44614010 #
77. ◴[] No.44613508[source]
78. mlyle ◴[] No.44613555[source]
Silly me thought that congress had the power of the purse.
replies(2): >>44613619 #>>44617284 #
79. beezlewax ◴[] No.44613566{5}[source]
It was better than the illusion of freedom of information a lot of people have now. In reality mass manipulation is happening on a global scale at unprecedented levels.
80. rayiner ◴[] No.44613572{4}[source]
Just five years after the 14th amendment was ratified, the Supreme Court said:

> The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/83/36/

Wong Kim Ark, meanwhile, is a weird fucking case that spends a huge number of pages analyzing everything except the 14th amendment.

replies(1): >>44614023 #
81. worik ◴[] No.44613573{6}[source]
> What other gov’t during the same time period has lasted as long or longer

Yes, very few last 250 years.

USA has had some close calls before, the Civil War was horrific.

Nothing lasts forever, but I would not bet against the USA's system perpetuating itself this time, too

82. ◴[] No.44613579{5}[source]
83. ◴[] No.44613585{7}[source]
84. ◴[] No.44613592{9}[source]
85. rayiner ◴[] No.44613619{3}[source]
They do. But you don’t need to appropriate from the Treasury to cut some department within the EPA.
86. tremon ◴[] No.44613699{3}[source]
the far-right AfD might be banned using these laws but the whole system has been dragging its feet

How is this any different than how in the US, the far-right insurrectionist that orchestrated Jan6 should have been banned from pursuing public office but the whole system had been dragging its feet? It sounds nice in theory, but as long as there is no active interest in wielding that lawful power, it really is just a piece of paper.

87. beezlewax ◴[] No.44613715{3}[source]
And it also protects sex offenders from retribution.
replies(1): >>44613964 #
88. freddie_mercury ◴[] No.44613773[source]
I don't think corporate election influence or mass media really have anything to do with it.

The issue first showed up in 1828 election, when some of the Framers were still alive, and the US basically did nothing about it over the ensuing 200 years.

Remember it was Andrew Jackson who went around ignoring Supreme Court decisions and saying "they made their decision, let's see them enforce it".

And his abuse of executive powers during the Bank Wars to punish political enemies led to the formation of a new political party.

replies(1): >>44614254 #
89. amelius ◴[] No.44613781{3}[source]
It wasn't predicted because freedom of speech is generally considered a good thing so its darker aspects were never considered.

Same reason adtech has free reign to bring down society.

90. impossiblefork ◴[] No.44613836{4}[source]
It's also worth noting that the mainstream German parties have actually supported ethnic cleansing abroad, in Nagorno-Karabach, etc. while the AfD opposed those things, so I don't think it's very clear cut that AfD is the dangerous party.

Personally I find the political inclinations of the German mainstream parties to be what appears to be dangerous, since what they're doing actually led to a large number of deaths and a large number of people being displaced, to the loss of sovereignty and to the expansion of a dictatorship.

I see very little difference between Aliyev and Hitler, and he is still tolerated (in fact, my perception of Azerbaijani hate attitudes is that they're actually more extreme that the Nazi hate attitudes, i.e. simply going further, the systematic teaching of this hatred to even younger children that the Nazis primarily targeted, etc.).

replies(1): >>44614097 #
91. msgodel ◴[] No.44613869[source]
All of this stuff was hacked into the executive branch to begin with. People have been pointing out that the CFR is way longer than US code for a long time and someone finally dealt with it.
92. latexr ◴[] No.44613916{3}[source]
> You don't have 100% free speech in Germany

You don’t have it in the USA, either.

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

Does any country?

replies(1): >>44613990 #
93. thuridas ◴[] No.44613964{4}[source]
Influence doesn't always mean positive influence.

The aids distribution in Africa is highly correlated with Christianity

94. verisimi ◴[] No.44613966{4}[source]
The solution is to decrease your high investment in the politics show, and put your energy where it matters - the people around you, yourself. Do something real instead.
replies(1): >>44614693 #
95. kergonath ◴[] No.44613990{4}[source]
> Does any country?

No, and for good reasons. Even in a utopian liberal democracy, fundamental rights cannot be used to deprive someone else of their own fundamental rights. You cannot have freedom for all without limitations to that freedom.

replies(1): >>44614050 #
96. kergonath ◴[] No.44614010{3}[source]
These agencies work with delegated powers. It is completely impossible for such a limited number of people as the American Congress to be experts on everything. They need advisors and structures to help them understand the world and make the right decisions, but also to make sure that these decisions are enforced.

This may not be fully developed in the US constitution because the world was much simpler back then, but it is entirely compatible with it.

replies(1): >>44614813 #
97. nradclif ◴[] No.44614023{5}[source]
From Gemini:

The Original Intent of the 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, primarily to overturn the Supreme Court's infamous 1857 ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford. In that decision, the Court had held that no person of African descent, whether enslaved or free, could be a U.S. citizen.

The framers of the 14th Amendment intended to create a clear constitutional rule that would prevent this from ever happening again. Senator Jacob Howard, a key drafter of the amendment, stated that its citizenship clause "will, of course, include the children of all parents... who may be born in the United States." He specified only two exceptions: children of foreign diplomats and of enemy forces.

The language of the amendment was a direct refutation of the racist rationale of the Dred Scott decision. While the concept of "undocumented immigrants" as we know it today did not exist, the amendment's framers used broad language to ensure that citizenship was based on a principle of birth on American soil, not on race or the legal status of one's parents.

The Role of Wong Kim Ark

The Wong Kim Ark case became necessary because the government's interpretation of the 14th Amendment had narrowed. Following the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the U.S. government began arguing that Chinese people, even those born in the U.S., were not citizens. They claimed that Wong Kim Ark was not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. because his parents were still subjects of the Emperor of China.

The 1898 Supreme Court ruling in Wong Kim Ark was a crucial reaffirmation of the original intent. The Court's 6-2 majority opinion, written by Justice Horace Gray, systematically dismantled the government's arguments. The Court looked to the history of English common law and the intent behind the 14th Amendment.

It concluded that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" applied to all persons who are subject to U.S. laws and not under the authority of a foreign government, such as diplomats. The Court found that Wong Kim Ark's birth in the U.S. automatically made him a citizen, despite his parents' ineligibility for citizenship under the Chinese Exclusion Act.

In short, the Wong Kim Ark decision did not create a new standard; it prevented the government from creating a new, more restrictive interpretation of the 14th Amendment. It affirmed the foundational principle that birth on U.S. soil is the basis for citizenship, a principle that has been a cornerstone of American law ever since.

replies(1): >>44614798 #
98. throwawayqqq11 ◴[] No.44614029{3}[source]
The civic consens could only be undermined because people lack the contextual knowledge and (self) critical reasoning to not be vulnerable.

Germany tried to solve that problem by creating an extra-governmental body tasked with public broadcasting, with budget autonomy (collects its own pseudo tax) and supposed political independence.

https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Öffentlich-rechtlicher_Rundf...

But this falls short too. There are many positions occupied by people with political party affiliation and cases of corruption/embezzlement.

And the cherry on top are the austerity hawks chipping away at the school system for many decades now. The german school system is slowly collapsing, with state represantatives even boykotting a federal conference because their problems had been ignored for so long.

https://taz.de/Laender-boykottieren-den-Bildungsgipfel/!5918...

Limiting freedom of speech can be helpful in delicate, small scale cases but becomes unenforcable when the dipshit echo chambers grow and the overton window moves.

Germany has the same route ahead as the USA. I am certain :(

99. latexr ◴[] No.44614050{5}[source]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
100. the_why_of_y ◴[] No.44614097{5}[source]
The thousands of peace-keeping troops in Armenia/Azerbaijan that looked the other way were not German, but Russian. By the way, both Russia and Armenia are members of the CSTO military alliance[1], while Azerbaijan is not.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Org...

replies(1): >>44614312 #
101. pjmlp ◴[] No.44614157{5}[source]
This belief is stronger in Switzerland and Scandinavian countries, based on my experience.
102. pjmlp ◴[] No.44614175{4}[source]
That is being naive, the way it is going, elections will be as free as in any other authoritarian country.
103. buran77 ◴[] No.44614254{3}[source]
> "they made their decision, let's see them enforce it"

This was one lesson the common people never wanted to learn because it was so much easier to live on the belief that their system is intrinsically immune to abuse, it's just better, magically almost. It was bolstered by the same people's desire to feel better by pointing fingers at the "weak fools" living under dictatorships, incapable to fight. "We have rights and guns, we'll pick up arms and fight any abuse".

But when the abuses came pouring almost everyone piffled, living on the next belief that time will fix things. Sometimes it did. Or maybe one of these times will bring the shocking realization that it's easy to talk big in good times and hard to act in bad times when your skin is in the game.

104. impossiblefork ◴[] No.44614312{6}[source]
Yes, I know that the Russians looked the other way.

However, Baerbock has absolutely monstrous statements and the German gas-guzzling contingent are the obvious culprits for the EU partership agreements with Azerbaijan and for the incorrect statements treating this whole thing as somehow restoring Azerbaijani territorial integrity and the numerous statements by the EC falsely claiming that Armenia had attacked Azerbaijani (i.e. these 'we call on both sides...' in the aftermath of Azerbaijani attacks). Furthermore, it is German influence on the EC that made the implementation of the ICJ decision subject to negotiation, and it is likely German influence on the EC that forced the agreement whereby mine maps were exchanged for the release of PoWs. These mine maps naturally enabled further Azeri attacks. It is also very apparent that there was government influence on media organizations to not report the starvation in the NKAO beginning after the Azeri blocking of the Lachin corridor-- for example in Sweden state television reported nothing, and reported of the ethnic cleansing itself only that 'Armenian separatists have agreed to leave Azerbaijan'. This shows co-ordination between Swedish government, Swedish state television (SVT) and Turkey or Azerbaijan, indicating a secret deal either for the sake the Swedish NATO entry or on the EU level. Certain phrases 'lightning offensive' which sound decidedly Turkish are also repeated in many newspaper articles, indicating a larger deal rather than something specific to Sweden.

The CSTO is absolutely irrelevant, as everybody who matters in any way knows completely. France would not be selling weapons to Armenia if they believed that their CSTO membership were relevant.

There were excellent opportunities to intervene even as the Azeri troops were rolling down the Agdam road to Stepanakert, and it's very unlikely that the Germans were unaware. SAR satellite imagery of the region is so readily available that unclassified images can be obtained on a commercial basis and I'm not even sure it was cloudy.

105. matwood ◴[] No.44614381[source]
> Americans are just so lucky and take so much for granted.

As an American living abroad this seems to be the general consensus with the people I talk to. At some point American exceptionalism became expected without the work and investment required.

106. bitlax ◴[] No.44614404[source]
But then you look at Baltimore and think "y'know, I think there's a bit more to it."
replies(1): >>44615027 #
107. nosianu ◴[] No.44614411{4}[source]
> the only thing preventing total war is the belief that it might be possible to fix it next year

And the knowledge that you cannot win when the other side controls the armed forces, the FBI, and all the governing institutions, a lot of states entirely too, and is clearly willing (and maybe even eager) to use them? The president and the people behind him probably look forward to their opponents trying. I think this "total war" might be very short.

replies(1): >>44614704 #
108. nosianu ◴[] No.44614482{5}[source]
> Are you saying they weren't lied to?

I think Trump & team have been very open about their intentions. There's even his entire first presidency to look at. At most, some of his voters might be surprised that he actually follows through on exactly what he promised (for example some of those voting for him now surprised about being targeted by ICE, including farmers fearing for their cheap workforce).

So sure, lots of lies, on the other hand and at the same time everything was planned and prepared quite openly.

109. thaumasiotes ◴[] No.44614498[source]
> The framers noted that the system was vulnerable to a single "faction" [1].

That was hundreds of years ago; when Madison says "domestic faction", he doesn't mean "a faction", he means what we would today call "factionalism". The 18th-century use is a pretty direct mirror of the Latin word factio, also meaning factionalism.

The idea that "checks and balances" are built into the US governmental structure is interesting. It would make sense if governmental positions were held by right of heredity. They aren't, but you can see how the Framers would be working with that mental model.

As the US government is actually constructed, Congressmen, for example, have no incentives to preserve anything as a power exclusive to Congress, because they have no lasting affiliation with Congress.

110. Tainnor ◴[] No.44614509{4}[source]
> were basically occupied for 50 years by multiple foreign powers

what a bunch of nonsense

111. refurb ◴[] No.44614530{3}[source]
The stupidity of it (or lack thereof) wasn’t the point of the comment I replied to.
112. Frost1x ◴[] No.44614591[source]
I don’t think that’s a fair assessment. The document was meant to be a living adaptable document. In many cases rather than adapting the document directly, laws and interpretations were layered outside the document to keep most the initial structure solid. Amendments came about largely once something was deemed so important it absolutely should be embedded (like the abolishment of slavery) so few mistakes could be made.

The structure should really have a few more obvious significant layers where things could shift around over time.

113. jfengel ◴[] No.44614693{5}[source]
I am working for the people around me. Because they are being hurt by this "show". Government workers who have been fired without cause. Trans people who cannot get their medicine. Latinos who are scared to go out in public for fear of being swept up.

This is not a show for me. These are the people in my life.

114. jfengel ◴[] No.44614704{5}[source]
It would be. It's just what you do when all of the alternatives are worse.
115. rayiner ◴[] No.44614798{6}[source]
Gemini, what did the Slaughterhouse Cases say about the 14th amendment’s reference to “subject to the jurisdiction?”

The *Slaughterhouse Cases (1873)* famously narrowed the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, particularly its Privileges or Immunities Clause. While the case primarily focused on that clause, the Court also touched upon the "subject to the jurisdiction" language in the citizenship clause.

The 14th Amendment states: "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."

In the Slaughterhouse Cases, Justice Samuel Miller, writing for the majority, briefly clarified the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." He stated that this phrase was intended to *exclude certain categories of individuals from automatic birthright citizenship*, even if they were born on U.S. soil. Specifically, he mentioned:

* *Children of foreign ministers or consuls:* These individuals are considered to be under the jurisdiction of their parents' sovereign nation, not the United States. * *Children of citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States:* This was a general exclusion for those whose allegiance was considered to be to another country, such as children of enemy aliens during wartime.

The primary purpose of this clause, in the context of the post-Civil War era, was to firmly establish the citizenship of formerly enslaved people, overturning the Dred Scott decision. However, the "subject to the jurisdiction" language ensured that certain exceptions to territorial birthright citizenship were maintained, consistent with international law and diplomatic practice.

It's important to note that while the Slaughterhouse Cases introduced this interpretation, the scope of "subject to the jurisdiction" for birthright citizenship was later more definitively addressed and affirmed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which held that a child born in the United States to Chinese immigrants who were not citizens was indeed a U.S. citizen because he was "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.

116. rayiner ◴[] No.44614813{4}[source]
The notion of Congress “delegating powers” to administrative agencies is entirely incompatible with the constitution.

The administrative agencies do not merely “advise.” They make regulations with the force of law (legislative power), enforce those regulations (executive power), and adjudicate violations of the regulations (judicial power). That concentration of the three powers into a single entity is the very thing the Constitution goes to great lengths to avoid.

replies(2): >>44615041 #>>44616340 #
117. ujkhsjkdhf234 ◴[] No.44615027{3}[source]
What is happening in Baltimore?
118. kergonath ◴[] No.44615041{5}[source]
> The notion of Congress “delegating powers” to administrative agencies is entirely incompatible with the constitution.

With which article specifically?

Yes, enforcement should not be managed by these agencies. The way to fix this is to reshape them, not give in and let the executive run the show without checks. Of course, that requires a working legislative body and a judiciary that is not fixated on the end times.

119. bamboozled ◴[] No.44615093[source]
Social media is killing our societies, and it hasn't just affected politics, that just seems to be one of the lighting rods of all the shit.

Social media has allowed the masses to be manipulated in a targeted way like we've never seen in history.

replies(1): >>44615860 #
120. ndsipa_pomu ◴[] No.44615246[source]
That's assuming that votes were accurately counted and reported by the black box voting machines
121. bmitc ◴[] No.44615357[source]
It turns out that people were right about capitalism and its sinister dangers.
122. tzs ◴[] No.44615424{3}[source]
Yes they would have, for many of the same reasons the ACLU did [1].

[1] https://www.aclu.org/documents/aclu-and-citizens-united

replies(1): >>44616227 #
123. rufus_foreman ◴[] No.44615771[source]
>> tearing down hundreds of years of precedent is not conservative, this is an extremist court

The Roberts court has overturned precedent less often than any other recent court. See https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/29/us/supreme-court-preceden....

By your definitions, the Roberts court is the most conservative court, and the Warren Burger court from 1969 to 1986 was the most extremist.

You don't care about overturning precedent. The above facts will not change your mind about the Roberts court. The real issue is there in the article I linked to:

"What distinguishes the Roberts court is ideology. In cases overruling precedents, the Warren court reached a liberal result 92 percent of the time. The Burger and Rehnquist courts reached liberal outcomes about half the time. The number dropped to 35 percent for the Roberts court. Since 2017, it has ticked down a bit, to 31 percent"

The Roberts court is in fact conservative. It does not often overturn precedent, but when it overturns precedent it does so with conservative results. That's why you and other liberals don't like it.

124. Rebuff5007 ◴[] No.44615860[source]
Its a bit sad to me that the tech community here on HN doesn't seem to take any responsibility for all this.

Surely some non-trivial percentage of the commenters / lurkers that are proud to talk about their mono-repo or their favorite react library had some part in the fact that millions think the covid vaccine has 5G.

125. jjav ◴[] No.44616024[source]
> As I recall, the system was set up with 3 branches of government in tension. Obviously, that was naive.

The zero-day bug in the system that had not been exploited until now is that two of the three branches don't actually have any power of enforcement. So if the executive branch decides to just flat out ignore them, there are no consequences.

126. techjamie ◴[] No.44616227{4}[source]
I'm probably being cynical, but I take their reasoning for opposition with a grain of salt when they themselves partake in lobbying. Removing it would hurt them, too.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/american-civil-liberties-un...

127. throwaway4220 ◴[] No.44616340{5}[source]
Ok, so after you burn down this system what’s the replacement? Nothing?
128. yareally ◴[] No.44616747{5}[source]
How is the Senate gerrymandered? They're elected statewide.
129. pstuart ◴[] No.44616939[source]
We were warned from the beginning about the dangers of political parties: https://teachingamericanhistory.org/blog/george-washington-o...

That seems to be the major mis-step in trying to structure the government to be secure from capture; obviously the whole experiment was new so they can be forgiven for not addressing it.

But we know now, and would be well-served to identify how to restructure things if given the chance. Unfortunately, the coup by the current regime seems to have been successful and it's going to have to get a lot worse before it blows up and we get something different.

130. exoverito ◴[] No.44617049{5}[source]
It'd be nice if we could remove congress members for blatant corruption too, e.g. Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell. Or prevent further Weekend at Bernie's politicians like Diane Feinstein and Joe Biden.
131. maxerickson ◴[] No.44617119{5}[source]
It wasn't that centralized (many many independent newspapers and such).

And then "information" is doing a lot of work when you start talking about social media.

132. exoverito ◴[] No.44617155[source]
We've already had a coup in 1963, but Americans are such a thoroughly propagandized people that they don't even know it happened.
133. delfinom ◴[] No.44617284{3}[source]
That's the problem. Congress is simply the bean counters. They aren't HR.