This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The thing you're missing is that Congress kept delegating rule-making authority to "independent agencies" under the executive, while also creating rules the executive branch had to follow while exercising the delegated authority. The fear from those who are concerned by this move is that Trump will keep the delegated rule-making authority, while ignoring the rules for exercising that delegated authority.
In theory, if Congress wanted to, they could seize power back with unvetoable majorities in the House and Senate, and remove both the delegated authority and the rules for exercising it. But with the split between MAGA and non-MAGA Republicans, and Democrats, that is unlikely to happen. So the end result is a massive power grab for the executive branch because of unwillingness to act on the part of Congress and the Courts.
I see, so the way you're describing it, it seems like it's the chickens coming home to roost. Definitely concerning. I can't say I blame him for doing this, though. It sounds like he just picked up a hundred dollar bill off the floor that all the other POTUSs before him just walked past, out of respect for norms or whatever. I see the OP's point now, though, that he's loading a weapon that his enemies could wield in the future. Perhaps he figures that that long-term downside risk is worth it for the power he'll get to wield in his final 4 years in office (and perhaps his life, given his age). Probably irresponsible for a party leader, but pretty in character for him, by my lights.
No this is all rather nonsensical. First, congress delegates to many agencies including non independent. The grants to both are governed by the same law and cover significant activity. Indeed many of the most relevant are not independent agencies though of course some are.
The only real difference between independent and dependent agencies is whether the president can remove people at the agencies at will. That’s it. There aren’t other special rules that those independent agencies have to abide by that dependent agencies do not. They all must abide by the APA. So if the President smashes independent agencies the only difference is who is making the decision; not the process for decision making.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Except that clearly the APA would still apply to the president. The believers of the independent executive need to argue what is different about the president having the power and the answer seems to be “there might be more change in regulations”
More options
Context Copy link
If the power was delegated to the executive branch, this is not a power grab for the executive branch. It is perhaps a "power grab" by one part of the executive branch (the President) from another (the independent agencies). The problem with this theory is that the Constitution does not contemplate a part of the executive branch independent of the President.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link