Authoritarian vs. Constitutional control

Registered users do not see ads, it's free and easy. Register Here

Gutwrench

Site Champ
Posts
449
Reaction score
608
This is a non-answer, and completely ignores everything I just pointed out. If I want one-line answers that ignore the points I just made, I can go to PRSI. Why not throw in a thought about whether we should have an independent counsel again like during the Clinton impeachment? Or if the pendulum has swung too far? I am not disputing that Barr was allowed to do what he did. I am saying that our current system makes it almost completely impossible to do anything about a criminal president because we’ve given political appointees of the President the job of investigating the president and deciding if he should be prosecuted.

Be may guest at PRSI. You don’t get to change the Constitution or how the three co-equal branches work.
 
Registered users do not see ads, it's free and easy. Register Here

Renzatic

Site Champ
Posts
943
Reaction score
1,798
I think whenever there’s a conflict between branches it becomes a bit of gamesmanship. Congress forwent judicial review.

I could argue that it is ultimately unconstitutional, since congress was granted investigative powers as a check and balance against the more agile executive branch. But since there's nothing in the Constitution directly forbidding it, it's been used in such a way previously, and no one's bothered taking it before SCOTUS yet, it's treated as an "until we're told otherwise..." affair.
 

SuperMatt

Elite Member
Posts
1,425
Reaction score
2,853
Be may guest at PRSI. You don’t get to change the Constitution or how the three co-equal branches work.
So you have no opinion on whether we should bring back the independent counsel? Does the current system serve justice? Just stating basic facts is pointless; - I already know how the system works. I’m asking if it’s fair and if it should be changed in some way.
 

Gutwrench

Site Champ
Posts
449
Reaction score
608
So you have no opinion on whether we should bring back the independent counsel? Does the current system serve justice? Just stating basic facts is pointless; - I already know how the system works. I’m asking if it’s fair and if it should be changed in some way.

There’s little difference except how they are appointed. If you recall Nixon fired the special prosecutor.

Mueller did not conclude any criminal offense occurred and did not recommend any charges.

Unfortunately if you understood how the the system works we wouldn’t be here right now. But I’ll defer to you that you understand nonetheless.
 

SuperMatt

Elite Member
Posts
1,425
Reaction score
2,853
There’s little difference except how they are appointed. If you recall Nixon fired the special prosecutor.

Mueller did not conclude any criminal offense occurred and did not recommend any charges.

Unfortunately if you understood how the the system works we wouldn’t be here right now. But I’ll defer to you that you understand nonetheless.
*If* I understood fhe system? So you’re calling me ignorant, dismissing my questions with stuff like ”well that’s how the system works” even though I asked if the system should be changed. The system did change after the Nixon debacle. Then after Clinton, it changed again. The question is: should it change once again this time?

You could just say “I like the system; don’t change it” or “I don’t care to answer your question.” Instead, you insult my intelligence by insisting I don’t know how the system works. Great discussion.
 

P_X

Elite Member
Posts
1,535
Reaction score
2,772
There’s little difference except how they are appointed. If you recall Nixon fired the special prosecutor.

Mueller did not conclude any criminal offense occurred and did not recommend any charges.

Unfortunately if you understood how the the system works we wouldn’t be here right now. But I’ll defer to you that you understand nonetheless.
I like you, but you get annoyingly passive-aggressive on topics like this.
 

Gutwrench

Site Champ
Posts
449
Reaction score
608
Mueller didn't make a call on this particular issue, pro or con, in the report. He left that decision up to the AG.

It was his job to establish if elements of criminal offenses were met. He did not. It is up to the AG to make the final decision if criminal proceedings are appropriate based on the investigation. Since Mueller couldn’t that’s where it ended.
 

Renzatic

Site Champ
Posts
943
Reaction score
1,798
Man, I took a monster piss this morning. I got up, started to do my normal morning thing, and holy crap, I just keep peeing. It kept going and going and going. I was sitting there wondering what was going on, cuz I didn't remember drinking all that much water before bed last night. After half an hour, I started crying. I'm not ashamed to admit it, cuz it was a scary situation. I thought I was going to pee myself to death. Straight up dehydration, what with all the pee and the tears and everything. I actually had to flush three times midstream to keep from overfilling the toilet.

But anyway, it stopped, and everything turned out okay.

Just thought you'd all want to know.
 

Gutwrench

Site Champ
Posts
449
Reaction score
608
Man, I took a monster piss this morning. I got up, started to do my normal morning thing, and holy crap, I just keep peeing. It kept going and going and going. I was sitting there wondering what was going on, cuz I didn't remember drinking all that much water before bed last night. After half an hour, I started crying. I'm not ashamed to admit it, cuz it was a scary situation. I thought I was going to pee myself to death. Straight up dehydration, what with all the pee and the tears and everything. I actually had to flush three times midstream to keep from overfilling the toilet.

But anyway, it stopped, and everything turned out okay.

Just thought you'd all want to know.

Confirming you sit to pee? 🤨
 

ericgtr12

Elite Member
Staff member
Posts
2,716
Reaction score
5,094
I'm a little torn on the ideology behind this one because I think there is something to be said for China, I understand that the virus originated there but once they got a handle on it they were able to manage it much more easily because they have say over their population.

There are no dumb ass people running around waving Trump flags and refusing to wear masks, that shit would never fly there. Yes, some freedoms are sacrificed but in an event like the COVID it pays off.
 

Chew Toy McCoy

Elite Member
Site Donor
Posts
1,464
Reaction score
2,576
I'm a little torn on the ideology behind this one because I think there is something to be said for China, I understand that the virus originated there but once they got a handle on it they were able to manage it much more easily because they have say over their population.

There are no dumb ass people running around waving Trump flags and refusing to wear masks, that shit would never fly there. Yes, some freedoms are sacrificed but in an event like the COVID it pays off.

But there were also a lot better results in democratic country’s who are lucky enough to not have a leader who blew it off as a hoax for months while making fun of people wearing masks. Was listening to a podcast this morning talking about how the US was rock bottom in response when comparing to other developed country’s body count adjusted for population differences. For example based on South Korea and adjusting for the population difference we would only have about 3,000 dead total. Instead we added to 0’s to that number. There’s a good chance we’ll hit a half million in the next couple months. #1?
 

Mark

Thread Starter
Site Champ
Site Donor
Posts
289
Reaction score
603
I'm a little torn on the ideology behind this one because I think there is something to be said for China, I understand that the virus originated there but once they got a handle on it they were able to manage it much more easily because they have say over their population.

There are no dumb ass people running around waving Trump flags and refusing to wear masks, that shit would never fly there. Yes, some freedoms are sacrificed but in an event like the COVID it pays off.

@ericgtr12
thank you for bringing the topic around to the very point of the original post. i appreciate that.

(more) Authoritarian vs. (more) Constitutional control.

in my cited China case, there is no greater threat ( as perceived by the by Chinese Government itself) than the threat it feels when Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Macao are not considered to be integral to and inseparable from China.
make no mistake, China will not tolerate any social democratic leanings of Legco (the Hong Kong locally elected council).
it will root out and destroy persons and families of its perceived enemies, in order to maintain control.
it does not matter what the law or Basic Law is. its about making sure that that it is able, in the end, to maintain control - no matter what.

yes. restrictions put in place in China to stop the spread of COVID-19 were draconian. but China used every tactic and tool it could to stop the spread. it worked. in the end, it saved lives. yes, people had to wear the equivalent of ankle bracelets etc etc.
but it worked.

the above is an example how a (more) Authoritarian government maintains control, and in the end benefits its people, in spite of the populous needing to give up any temporary movements.

the use of China in this (more) Authoritarian example however is sometimes apt to be clouded since there is so much misunderstanding about China and the way it controls its people on a day to day level.
so you can use Singapore as actually the same model as well.
Lee Kuan Yu was a benevolent dictator.
but he was a dictator in every way.
he and his People's Party took Singapore from being a disease infested backwater, to a modern Nation City State, in just a few decades. it benefited its people. but it arrested people who agitated against it. it used British laws that it left in place to control sedition and right to arrest, for months, persons without trial.
but it benefited its people.

now, America.
is many, but not all States, there are laws on the books that allow the State authorities to put in place measures to control the spread of disease.
Attorney General Barr in his infamous speech before the Federalist Society said:
A related...aspect of Executive power is the power to address exigent circumstances that demand quick action to protect the well-being of the nation but on which the law is either silent or inadequate -- such as dealing with natural disasters or plagues.
Now Barr delivered this speech on November 15, 2019 PC*
He was prophetic.
A President should have the authority to do what is needed to control the spread of a plague - Trump didn't take action at all, and even said that wearing masks was ineffective and the economy could not be sacrificed - even his muchly touted Warp Speed was just a marketing repackaging of the pharmaceutical industry's own resources it poured into research.
And so we have many more persons dead and will die needlessly before the vaccine is administered enough to cause herd immunity (a term Dr. Fauci used yesterday to describe what will be possible if most people get vaccinated) .

So, President Biden, in January, can and should use Barr's very language delivered before the Federalist Society - to protect the well-being of the nation but on which the law is either silent or inadequate -- such as dealing with natural disasters or plagues - and institute a general request for all States to comply with CDC guidelines -and backed by guidelines. This is why Pelosi is right to not accept McConnell's trying to slip into the Covid Relief funding any provision to exclude companies from being culpable for not complying with CDC guidelines. Support the CDC guidelines. Dont make them "recommenndations" that have no tooth as the Trump administration did. Meat packing industry being a good example.

Regarding Trump's continued attempt to carry out a de facto coup d'etat, and his supporters using intimidation against Electoral Electors, I repeat, I think that America's division of government control (separation of powers) was the mechanism that allowed the rule of law (the Constitution) to overcome the Statist / Authoritarian elements that have been running amok for 4 years, and the attempt to carry out this de facto coup d'etat in all of its Lame Duck flaccidity.
More authoritarian leaning nations do not have such strong and vigorous and co-equal branches.
It was the Judicial Branch of government (very different from the Justice Department) that figured in to come to America's rescue during this past half-year to combat corruption from the Executive branch and stagnation from the Legislative Branch.

Bringing it home, (more) Authoritarian vs. (more) Constitutional control should continue to discussed - its the central issue to survival of America in a world full of globalised threats that increasingly needs management and managerial competence to combat .
But we must not follow the model of Singapore. America's liberal democracy has an effective tripartite equal power system to ensure rule of law, with real-time interpretation of what is legal and what is not illegal, while affording the Executive Branch the power to take effective actions.

*Pre-Covid
 
Last edited:

Gutwrench

Site Champ
Posts
449
Reaction score
608
It was the Judicial Branch of government (very different from the Justice Department) that figured in to come to America's rescue during this past half-year to combat corruption from the Executive branch and stagnation from the Legislative branch.

For example?
 
Registered users do not see ads, it's free and easy. Register Here
Top Bottom