you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 3 days ago (3 children)

Except president it seems. Super unstable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago (2 children)

    Are you able to clarify what you mean?

    Presidents don't have the power to make laws according to the Constitution, only the authority to enforce them. The executive branch controls the DOJ and other executive departments and over time, the legislative branch has ceded power to the executive. A president changing those departments as they see fit is unfortunately without meaningful guardrails and where most of the damage has been done. Sweeping changes here are only possible with compliance from other bodies of government. This current version of the executive branch was not intended by the Constitution.

    Unlawful executive orders (not laws) have mostly been deemed unconstitutional by the judicial, excluding when the supreme court becomes involved and chooses to make partisan decisions that disregard years of precedent. A compliant congressional majority has failed to curb overreach by the executive, especially regarding actions that would usually be considered acts of war. Compliant branches failing to provide checks and balances as intended allowed the damages to occur within areas governed not by laws but by traditions.

    It's incredibly easy to tear down components of the executive branch when the other two branches offer no resistance. Many things that were "understood" as the norm should have been codified into law and were not. There is now resistance in place with the power to resist, since one party no longer controls all 3 branches. Whether they will or won't is a different story.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago (1 child)

    It's just an unnecessary amount of power and independence concentrated in one man. US president can enforce laws as he wishes or not enforce or enforce his own interpretation. No consequences unless a two third majority of Senate sees it as a political advantage to do so.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

    Agreed. It wasn't designed to be this way though and could only happen as it has with compliant politicians in other branches. Complete control across all 3 branches of government is not common and has only happened something like 3 times in the past 40 years.

  • source
  • parent