"He must have said that, if he said it, as a fleeting inhabitant of fairyland. The opposite is the truth. A constitutional democracy like ours is perhaps the most difficult of man's social arrangements to manage successfully. Our scheme of society is more dependent than any other form of government on knowledge and wisdom and self-discipline for the achievement of its aims. For our democracy implies the reign of reason on the most extensive scale. The Founders of this Nation were not imbued with the modern cynicism that the only thing that history teaches is that it teaches nothing. They acted on the conviction that the experience of man sheds a good deal of light on his nature. It sheds a good deal of light not merely on the need for effective power if a society is to be at once cohesive and civilized, but also on the need for limitations on the power of governors over the governed. To that end, they rested the structure of our central government on the system of checks and balances. For them, the doctrine of separation of powers was not mere theory; it was a felt necessity. Not so long ago, it was fashionable to find our system of checks and balances obstructive to effective government. It was easy to ridicule that system as outmoded — too easy.... A scheme of government like ours no doubt at times feels the lack of power to act with complete, all-embracing, swiftly moving authority.... I know no more impressive words on this subject than those of Mr. Justice Brandeis: 'The doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted by the Convention of 1787 not to promote efficiency, but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. The purpose was not to avoid friction, but, by means of the inevitable friction incident to the distribution of the governmental powers among three departments, to save the people from autocracy.'"
Wrote Justice Felix Frankfurter in 1952, concurring in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer.
१५ फेब्रुवारी, २०१९
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
२७ टिप्पण्या:
It was a simple thing.
It has very little good to do.
...The Founders of this Nation were not imbued with the modern cynicism that the only thing that history teaches is that it teaches nothing. They acted on the conviction that the experience of man sheds a good deal of light on his nature....
Which is why we have the EC.
Beyond interstate commerce and our borders and foreign relations all the government does is take money from people and buy votes and pay off cronies.
There is nothing complicated about that.
I love this Frankfuter quote. It reminds me of a recent exchange with a Left-leaning friend, a former US history teacher, no less. When Obama was Prez, he sympathized with the Friedman lament that the US was not like China, with a supreme ruler with absolute power to do whatever he wants. But the other day, he sent an email saying the courts will prevent Hitler from building walls without Congressional consent.
I wrote back saying, hey, one thing we can both be grateful for with Trump in the White House is the newfound respect for the separation of power in the Constitution. It would never have happened if HRC had won. For some reason I have not heard from him since.
"The doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted by the Convention of 1787 not to promote efficiency, but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power."
Love it. Wish that half the country (the Dems) understood it and its importance.
Ironic that Congress is the branch that, historically, has exercised the least amount of arbitrary power. They fight too much among themselves to get things done, i.e., exercise power. And, in matters of war, Congress has ceded a lot of power to the President.
The branch who most often exercises arbitrary power, surprise, surprise, is the unelected judicial branch.
The federal government should only regulate corporations and people who operate across state lines.
Achilles said...
The federal government should only regulate corporations and people who operate across state lines.
You mean to say that the federal government should not be taking over state and private land to build walls?
I cannot remember who it was, but someone wrote that his father, an immigrant, was always complaining about how inefficient the American system of government was, then in his old age understood that "it was designed that way on purpose".
The civics lesson was a nice for the kiddies who might be reading, but this is the sentence that matters:
"The Executive Order was not authorized by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and it cannot stand."
Whenever the cuckservatives start talking about "the separation of powers" you can be sure its to help the Left-wing or the Chamber of Commerce. Please explain how Obama's DACA order was constitutional - and did NOT violate the separation of powers.
Suddenly all the cucks will tell us that gosh darn they're really in favor of a wall, just not this way. Gosh darn it. What a bunch of liars!
Chuck said...
Achilles said...
The federal government should only regulate corporations and people who operate across state lines.
You mean to say that the federal government should not be taking over state and private land to build walls?
I think you thought that was clever but it was just really fucking stupid.
Here is my post just above that:
Achilles said...
"Beyond interstate commerce and our borders and foreign relations all the government does is take money from people and buy votes and pay off cronies."
One of the primary responsibilities of the federal government is protecting our border.
I have said this during political arguments for 25 years: Gridlock is not a bug. It is a feature. The Founders did not design a government that smoothly go from A to B to C without there being extraordinary unity of purpose within the country. Give me our lumpy, fractious shuffling republic any day of the week. Especially now that government has so outgrown the bounds imagined at its founding. God save us from a brisk, efficient tyranny.
Felix Frankfurter - secretly - supported FDR's attempt to pack the court in 1937. And - secretly - while a SCOTUS judge was helping FDR pick judges, write his speeches, and conduct foreign policy.
He never believed in the "Separation of powers" when it came to himself.
rcocean said...
Whenever the cuckservatives start talking about "the separation of powers" you can be sure its to help the Left-wing or the Chamber of Commerce. Please explain how Obama's DACA order was constitutional - and did NOT violate the separation of powers.
Suddenly all the cucks will tell us that gosh darn they're really in favor of a wall, just not this way. Gosh darn it. What a bunch of liars!
I really liked when the cucks defended the liberal judges who literally said President Trump did not have the authority to rescind former President Obama's executive orders.
The only thing worse than the democrats are the traitor cucks.
Not so long ago, it was fashionable to find our system of checks and balances obstructive to effective government. It was easy to ridicule that system as outmoded — too easy.
It seems to be almost a law of nature that any government, no matter how much power is kept decentralized and diffuse upon it's establishment, over time will tend to focus and centralize power. When the United States government was established almost 240 years ago, power was purposely kept diffuse. But in the intervening decades and centuries, power has gradually become more centralized, more focused. Over time, power naturally accretes. It's like there's a gravitational pull towards tyranny.
The Founding fathers did not expect "Gridlock". They assumed the Federal Government would have limited powers and those powers would only be exercised when both the congress and the POTUS agreed.
They certainly never imagined the Federal Courts and the Congress would demand the POTUS NOT enforce the law.
The fact is that gun-totting heartless rednecks run this sick country, and the paramilitary NRA is the de facto ruling cabal with Schlump as its billionaire figurehead. Animals are the true voiceless victims of violence on this planet at the hands of man. Who is Schlump, a loveless man, to proclaim a "national emergency" on Valentine's day (or the day after)? Cupid will smite Schlump with an arrow through his cold & callous heart. Who knew that Cupid has taken the form of Robert Mueller, Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice.
Blogger Fernandistein said..."The Executive Order was not authorized by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and it cannot stand." 2/15/19, 12:05 PM
Another "Einstein" makes a moronic comment, despite Congress giving Presidents such authority back in 1976. What part of that don't you understand? Maybe you think Congress doesn't have such authority to pass a law delegating it to President's?
https://lawandcrime.com/immigration/law-prof-congress-gave-presidents-emergency-power-needed-for-build-border-wall-back-in-1976/
Truman's problem was that he had perfectly enacted Congressional laws to invoke in 1952, but chose, for political reasons, not to do so. Had he used Taft-Hartley (an act passed over Truman's veto), he could have accomplished exactly the same thing he attempted to do but was rebuffed by the court- indeed, Truman used the act in other instances, so he wasn't not doing so on principle in this particular case.
However, even in this case, Congress has authorized via legislation such declarations- we have several of them in force at this moment. The discretion for such declarations is broadly given to the executive, which is Trump at the moment. Either the legislation granting this power to the executive is illegitimate in whole, or Trump is acting within the bounds of the legislation.
This why I think, to win, the Left will have to attack the law itself as being unconstitutional- this is an argument that might persuade a conservative justice. I don't think you are going to convince a conservative justice that the judiciary is the forum for deciding what is and is not an emergency in regards to the legislation itself- a conservative justice is far more likely to, in that case, to just say it is up to Congress to reign in the executive either by passing explicit legislation or by impeaching said executive and removing him from office.
policraticus said...
I have said this during political arguments for 25 years: Gridlock is not a bug. It is a feature. The Founders did not design a government that smoothly go from A to B to C without there being extraordinary unity of purpose within the country. Give me our lumpy, fractious shuffling republic any day of the week. Especially now that government has so outgrown the bounds imagined at its founding. God save us from a brisk, efficient tyranny.
I cringe whenever I hear the word "bipartisan". You know nothing good is coming.
"A constitutional democracy like ours is perhaps the most difficult of man's social arrangements to manage successfully. Our scheme of society is more dependent than any other form of government on knowledge and wisdom and self-discipline for the achievement of its aims."
A constitutional democracy will not become "difficult" to manage, if the assumption of the managing class is that the necessary and sufficient condition for its maintenance is knowledgeable, wise, and self-disciplined managers. It will become impossible. The endurance of "our scheme of society" is dependent on something more foundational than managerial expertise and getting the rules of the game just right.
The Founders, as knowledgeable and wise and self-disciplined a group of elites as ever governed a human society, could not maintain "our scheme of life" under the cultural conditions brought about by the foolishness of their successors.
Fernandistein said...
The civics lesson was a nice for the kiddies who might be reading, but this is the sentence that matters:
"The Executive Order was not authorized by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and it cannot stand."
This is correct inasmuch as that quote is the crux of the Youngstown decision.
However, it should be noted that the phrase "The Executive Order" in the quote refers specifically to EO 10340 which called for seizure of the steel mills and not to EO's generally.
people who operate across state lines.
like the invasion of illegal aliens.
Trump is hated so much in DC because he refuses to accept the bribes offered to him to sell us out. That makes him the source of ALL DIVISION. The stubborn SOB won't take the money.
At root government is a simple thing. George Washington got to its essence: "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force." (And yes, I'm aware that there is doubt whether Washington actually said this. Whoever said it was correct.)
Just as Truman had political reasons for proceeding as he did to seize the steel mills, Trump has his reasons for trying to use emergency powers to build the wall (rather than, say, proposing legislation when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress). Truman failed and Trump probably will too. But he will have satisfied his supporters that he did what he could and was overcome by the Leftist Establishment.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा