Separation of Powers in the United States

[S'task]

I came across an article recently that I thought folks might find interesting:

Disregarding the Separation of Powers Has Real-Life Consequences | National Review

The rule of law is undermined, and liberty diminished.

www.nationalreview.com

The separation of powers and its role in protecting individual liberty and the rule of law can sound pretty abstract. I confess it seemed that way to me in my high-school civics class. I came to appreciate the genius of the Founders’ design more fully only years later, when as a judge I saw what happens to real people in real cases when the separation of powers goes unattended. Let me share with you a few of their stories, some of which you will see laid out more fully later. They’re just a sampling of so many that came across my desk.

I'd suggest reading the entire article, but suffice to say, the anecdotes used by the Justice do draw interesting lines, and do show how separation of powers, a critical component of the US Constitution's checks and balances, have become more and more muddled. To me this is very concerning, especially with how more legislative power gets concentrated into the unaccountable bureaucracy of the executive branch...

 

[ShadowsOfParadox]

man...

we're fucked aren't we?

 

[Arlos]

I am starting to think it is part of the inevitable decay of democracy and civilization, a system is only as good as the people who uphold it after all.
In France we are also seeing problem with the separation of powers, mostly with the executive subverting the others two more and more over the years.

 

[Aaron Fox]

Actually, it is less that the power separation is muddled and more of the fact that for a good century now the executive has been taking more and more power because the legislative won't act and the judicial doesn't have any real countermeasures to it.

It also doesn't help that democracy has its limits and that there is such a thing as too much democracy. A faceless, unelected bureaucracy is needed because it is necessary and sadly a counterpoint of the solidification of power with any one branch.

Britain, oddly enough, is a showcase on one branch basically taking all the power for itself (and partially because it also is the bureaucracy) with the House of Commons literally defanging the House of Lords and the House of Windsor -the only two checks on the House of Commons- for decades. The US is not in that state yet, but it also is limited to what I call 'Democracy Uber Alles'... which make this quote impossible: "Fiat justitia ruat caelum" or "Let justice be done though the heavens fall" (it is this quote that ended slavery in Britain in the 19th century, and later used to ban slavery altogether in the British Empire, and thus the world). If the courts weren't so thoroughly democratized, the courts (and law enforcement) wouldn't be so unwilling to do actual justice.

 

[Deleted member]

I believe the Baron Montesquieu was the most practical political thinker of all times and that only by so closely following his advice are we a great nation. Each time there is an encroachment on the separation of powers, the Republic draws closer to Death. I also think the only solution in the immediate term is tricameralism, creating an Executive Council which can veto Executive Orders and Regulatory decision-making by the Executive Branch.

 

[ShadowsOfParadox]

more and more power because the legislative won't act

the legislative has straight up outright ceded a lot of it's powers to the executive branch, most of it has even been on purpose. all those regulatory bodies get legislative power while being in the executive branch.

 

[Aaron Fox]

the legislative has straight up outright ceded a lot of it's powers to the executive branch, most of it has even been on purpose. all those regulatory bodies get legislative power while being in the executive branch.

The thing is that for the most part, the legislative wouldn't act and thus ceded those powers. That's the problem.

I believe the Baron Montesquieu was the most practical political thinker of all times and that only by so closely following his advice are we a great nation. Each time there is an encroachment on the separation of powers, the Republic draws closer to Death. I also think the only solution in the immediate term is tricameralism, creating an Executive Council which can veto Executive Orders and Regulatory decision-making by the Executive Branch.

That would be problematic at best, as it would be set up in a similar fashion as the various legislative committees, which is bad at best. Especially since the GOP has gone full tribal and would rather see everything burn than fixing things.

 

[ShadowsOfParadox]

Especially since the GOP has gone full tribal and would rather see everything burn than fixing things.

if the GOP has gone full tribal it's a response to Obama. there's an interesting graph showing WHEN exactly all the regressive SJW woke culture buzzwords started popping up. And it was during Obama's term in office.

 

[Deleted member]

The thing is that for the most part, the legislative wouldn't act and thus ceded those powers. That's the problem.

That would be problematic at best, as it would be set up in a similar fashion as the various legislative committees, which is bad at best. Especially since the GOP has gone full tribal and would rather see everything burn than fixing things.

Select it by Sortition of adult US citizens between the ages of 35 and 65 who have no criminal record, one per state.

 

[Cherico]

if the GOP has gone full tribal it's a response to Obama. there's an interesting graph showing WHEN exactly all the regressive SJW woke culture buzzwords started popping up. And it was during Obama's term in office.

I actually don't blame Obama for that one, that was a problem that had been growing and growing more toxic with time. It was only a matter of time until inter sectionalism broke out into the larger world and when it did it was going to suck because the philosphy is inherently self destructive.

For the democratic elites the SJW movement was like this horror show, most of them remembered how the hippies fucked them over hard during the 60s, they wanted very much to avoid the envitable outcome which is that the crazy control freaks would boot them out of power and then alienate every one around them, purge anyone who disagreed with them and basically ensure a brand new right wing coalition composed of all the people they fucked over.

The pre crazy train democratic party had a winning demographic hand and were a natural ruling party, these pricks took that train and are in the process of driving it off a cliff.

Pelosi from what I can tell is expecially angry about it and Obama behind closed doors has been known to show his disaproval too.

 

[Aaron Fox]

Select it by Sortition of adult US citizens between the ages of 35 and 65 who have no criminal record, one per state.

That... wouldn't work. That and the 1 per state rule would be extremely problematic as well...

if the GOP has gone full tribal it's a response to Obama. there's an interesting graph showing WHEN exactly all the regressive SJW woke culture buzzwords started popping up. And it was during Obama's term in office.

Nope, it has been a growing problem since the Civil Rights Movement when the Dixiecrats were ejected from the Democrats in the 1960s and absorbed into the GOP during the 1970s. Obama was simply the poor sap that got caught when it exploded.

I actually don't blame Obama for that one, that was a problem that had been growing and growing more toxic with time. It was only a matter of time until inter sectionalism broke out into the larger world and when it did it was going to suck because the philosphy is inherently self destructive.

For the democratic elites the SJW movement was like this horror show, most of them remembered how the hippies fucked them over hard during the 60s, they wanted very much to avoid the envitable outcome which is that the crazy control freaks would boot them out of power and then alienate every one around them, purge anyone who disagreed with them and basically ensure a brand new right wing coalition composed of all the people they fucked over.

The pre crazy train democratic party had a winning demographic hand and were a natural ruling party, these pricks took that train and are in the process of driving it off a cliff.

Pelosi from what I can tell is expecially angry about it and Obama behind closed doors has been known to show his disaproval too.

There is holy shit so much wrong with this statement here that it's mind-boggling...

 

[Cherico]

That... wouldn't work. That and the 1 per state rule would be extremely problematic as well...

Nope, it has been a growing problem since the Civil Rights Movement when the Dixiecrats were ejected from the Democrats in the 1960s and absorbed into the GOP during the 1970s. Obama was simply the poor sap that got caught when it exploded.

There is holy shit so much wrong with this statement here that it's mind-boggling...

This is the perspective of a lot of the democratic establishment folk I have met.

They know that they had this large tent that could potentially beat anything and all they needed to do to retain power was keep people from setting it on fire.

Then we went through a political realinment and no one knows where things are going to shake out, the knives are out and the activists want power at all costs.

If your an establishment democrat this is not a good outcome.

 

[ShadowsOfParadox]

I actually don't blame Obama for that one

the thing is, the graph isn't "slow climb into relevance" it's "basically non existent and then suddenly everywhere"

 

[Aaron Fox]

This is the perspective of a lot of the democratic establishment folk I have met.

Actually, the reality is -and this is the reality, not the manufactured stuff that various groups like to peddle- that the situation has been cooking for decades within the GOP ever since they absorbed the Dixies. If you want a glance at their history, they started out as the Southern Democrats, the same Democrats that started the fucking Civil War back in 1860. They lost that war and became part of the overall democratic party until the 1960s... but in the intervening time they had a short split during the 1930s because the Dems and GOP at the time weren't racist enough (I shit you not) and allied themselves with the Nazis. Then they got ejected from the Dems in the 1960s because they were considered too toxic (and thus a ticking time bomb) for the Dem leadership, leading to Nixon and Reagan to take them in during their elections while fostering their racist tendencies.

Now that has come to the fore as the Dixies took over... and they are willing to use anything to get power including courting treason. Given the previous company that the Dixies had though, it isn't surprising that they would court that.

 

[Deleted member]

@Aaron Fox can you please explain the alliance between Nazis and Democrats in presumably the 1930 - 1945 period?

 

[Aaron Fox]

@Aaron Fox can you please explain the alliance between Nazis and Democrats in presumably the 1930 - 1945 period?

No, the situation was that the Dixiecrats in the 1930s split off from the Democrats proper, creating the Dixiecrat Party (which the group got its current name), who then allied themselves with the Nazis.

From what I can understand, at the time the Dixies were impressively racist for the time (and that is saying something for 1930s America)... and the Democrats didn't want to go full racist. So they split from the party and became the Dixiecrats.

They got cowled by Director Edgar Hoover when the US entered WW2 and would later rejoin the Democratic party during the late 40s/early 50s if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Big Steve]

That's... sort of not entirely accurate?

Southern Democrats generally remained in the party, resisting an attempt by FDR to remove the powers-that-be of the Southern wing in the later elections of the 30s. After 1942 elections saw a GOP upswing, the Democratic majority in the House was reduced to one that only existed with the Dixiecrat voters, resulting in the Dixiecrats and GOP voting against New Deal liberals at times (you might call it a foreshadowing of the later move to the GOP).

Then in 1948, when Truman refused to dismiss Hubert Humphrey's civil rights speech and platform at the Democratic Convention, the Dixiecrats angrily split from the party and ran their own candidate, running Strom Thurmond as the "States' Rights Democratic Party" (and the rights in question were related to Jim Crow and racial segregation of course). He only won four states (SC, AL, MS, and LA) and one faithless electoral voter in Tennessee, and in the popular vote was only 18,000+ votes ahead of Henry Wallace, the former FDR VP and Progressive-American Labor candidate. In fact, they even failed to punish Truman and the Democratic Party by ensuring Dewey's victory, as Truman prevailed despite having not one but two wings of his party against him and Dewey essentially being crowned by the media and pollsters even before the election.

The Dixiecrats later attempted campaigns against JFK and LBJ, but those failed as well, and ultimately many rank and file joined Nixon's GOP once the Civil Rights Movement won the laws and court decisions that eviscerated the segregation regime. Some remained in the Democratic Party to protect their seniority and positions, but it was the beginning of the shift from the "Solid South" voting Democrat every time to the Solid South voting Republican.

The main point of contention is whether the GOP got them aboard through racism, or because the GOP's desire to restrain "big government" liberalism for business reasons meshed with the states' rights ideology of the South, even if it was for different reasons.

As for Southern Democrats being friendly to Nazis, I'd like documented proof of such links, as I'm unaware of overt Pro-Nazism outside of Fritz Kuhn and the German-American Bund. Even the America First movement was primarily a neutrality movement, although Lindbergh's knee-jerk pro-German attitudes undermined that.

 

[Deleted member]

@Big Steve thank you for that summation. That is what I believed as well. I haven't seen the faintest of any documentation of the sort to support what's being claimed here.

 

[Doomsought]

Actually, the biggest problems are judicial overreach. There are many of cases where the supreme court has legislated from the bench, including Roe-vs-Waid.

The separation of powers is a good idea, however the problem that has become apparent is a lack of enforcement.

 

[Deleted member]

I disagree that the problem is judicial overreach. The judiciary has simply always since the 1930s craft a justification which gives the majority as much of the result it wants as can be remotely justified within the rules of our system when confronted with big-ticket items. Only a few very instances on the Warren court exceeded this. To me this is precisely because the courts are aware that otherwise the entire system might collapse and that a restraining influence is wiser than a crisis. I see it as a long judicial shadow of FDR’s court packing threats.

Of course, this was supposed to be the function of the Senate before the Seventeenth Amendment.