Laws are being broken to make the omelet. Will the executive constrain itself to breaking only the laws you don't like, and stop when you want it to? Will the legislative branch cede it's authority and responsibilities only temporarily?
It might hard to unscramble that omelet if we want the rule of law back later.
The laws were broken in the 1930s when we created the unconstitutional monstrosity that is the modern executive branch. If you want to turn that back then I’m on board.
But if not then it must at least be democratically responsive. When republicans win the presidency—or a progressive or populist democrat—the 90% of the administrative state that’s comprised of Acela liberals should be asking how high to jump. Otherwise you have a system that’s not worth saving.
> The laws were broken in the 1930s when we created the unconstitutional monstrosity that is the modern executive branch
That's bibliolatry, directed to a long-obsolete interpretation of the Constitution and the role of the federal government. FDR was analogous to Copernicus and Kepler, rescuing the country from Ptolemaic interpretations of the Constitution that were based on outdated data sets. He pushed successfully for a pragmatic reinterpretation — not inconsistent with the text — that allowed effective federal government action to deal with a global crisis.
No, FDR's New Deal didn't end the Great Depression (that was done by World War II). But the New Deal did help hold off what could easily have turned into authoritarianism of the Huey Long variety.
The "living constitution" angle doesn't get you anywhere. If we are going to "pragmatically reinterpret" the Constitution to allow the modern administrative state, that just makes it more exigent to "pragmatically reinterpret" the law to ensure effective presidential control over the administrative state. I'd start by reinterpreting the Hatch Act to allow prosecuting anyone in the government who "resists" policies such as DOGE and mass deportations.
> The "living constitution" angle doesn't get you anywhere.
Says who? The Constitution is in essence the basic operating manual for American national government. Conditions on the ground have changed — and we've learned more about the world — since 1787. It'd be unpragmatic (read: insane) to insist that the original modus operandi MUST stay the same forever and ever, just because that's how they did things in 1787, as long as the new M.O. can fairly be said not to be inconsistent with the constitutional text.
It doesn't help your case that Article V provides an amendment process: Nothing in the Constitution prohibits reinterpreting the existing language to accommodate new evidence and new insights, at least not as long as the reinterpretation doesn't do violence to the text.
"The executive power" in Article II is just as open to interpretation as anything. Interpreting that power as being subject to Congress's Article I authority is clearly well within the hash marks, to say nothing of the playing field as a whole.
Article I can fairly be read as allowing Congress to expand, and/or to cabin, presidential authority. That includes creating, and delegating power to, administrative agencies under general presidential supervision; that could include delegating expansive powers to agencies and perhaps limiting the president's ability to hire and fire agency personnel.
The "unitary executive" interpretation — with a president asserting the right to unilaterally disregard or revoke congressionally-enacted arrangements — is dangerous in the extreme. We've seen that in other countries, and we could well see the same thing happen here.
Decades ago, the head of the Reactor Department on my ship [the USS Enterprise] had a list on the office wall of Great Naval Quotes that we were forbidden to use. The #1 prohibited quote on that list was, "But we've always done it that way!" followed by #2, "But we've never done it that way!" Both of those are violated by using a bibliolatry-based approach to the Constitution as a purported justification for unilaterally up-ending longstanding practices — especially when, on the whole, those practices have worked passably well.
==========
> that just makes it more exigent to "pragmatically reinterpret" the law to ensure effective presidential control over the administrative state
That's clearly one of your ideological priors, but it wasn't handed down from Mount Sinai on stone tablets.
But the “living constitution” is nothing more than imposing one’s ideological priors onto the document. I happen to think the crisis of a permanent bureaucracy that is ideologically divergent from the population is far more “dangerous” than anything else the country faces. If we are going to “pragmatically reinterpret” the constitution, that’s the challenge that such interpretation needs to meet.
> But the “living constitution” is nothing more than imposing one’s ideological priors onto the document.
That overlooks a key distinction: An "ideological prior" that's proved to be supported by real-world evidence (i.e., experience) is no longer an ideological prior.
Analogously: Special- and general relativity were just theories in 1905 and 1915 (their respective publication dates). Over decades, real-world evidence proved that they were, in the main, correct — but we still don't treat either as a sacred, immutable text.
The unitary-executive view is an untested theory, an ideological prior. In contrast, our existing administrative state is supported by close to a century of real-world experience.
That's not to say that modifications aren't needed in the modern state. We don't want to make a golden calf of the granular details of FDR's or the Warren Court's approaches, any more than we want to enshrine the unitary-executive model or the Alito-Thomas perspective.
But in a country with some 340 million people that's been the source of the reasonably-successful Pax Americana, it's incredibly risky to go unilaterally f*cking around — it's the equivalent of a teenaged driver insisting that he can refuel his car and change the oil while driving 75 mph on a crowded freeway.
The administrative system never worked. For much of the 20th century we had prosperity deriving from the post-WWII boon and the tatters of the Old Republic protecting private industry. But since 1980, we have had 12 presidential administrations. Of those, 9 won elections by expressly promising to cut government, several by promising to drown it in a bathtub. The only reason the system still exists is because American democracy is like those crosswalk buttons that aren’t actually hooked up to anything.
Regardless, we find ourselves in a new time. If the Old Republic could be overthrown by “emanations from penumbras” we can just as easily wave away the current imperial interregnum in which we find ourselves.
This is fine as a high level economic discussion, but I think it misses the point of the complaints from actually US consumers: when I consume healthcare as an individual I am paying with a blank check, and I am therefore likely to be tricked into consuming more health care than I would otherwise choose to afford, perhaps to a ruinous degree.
I think ordinary consumers care much less about whether their country spends a nominal share of GDP on the heath sector, than about whether they will be unexpectedly bankrupt by consuming health services, and this is why people are actually mad.
> The claim that US health care prices are inexplicably high was never well-evidenced
I can provide anecdotal evidence that prices inexplicably high. A primary care physician will charge anywhere between $200-$500 for a visit. If you have good insurance, you don’t pay out of pocket. In the same city, I once had to go to a PCP who would only work without insurance. I had to wait a lot because of how many people were lined up in front of the office, but I paid $50 for the visit. I’m already paying 4-10x in a comprable market for the same services.
When I was abroad, I had to visit a doctor’s office for food poisoning. I paid 200 in the local currency. I could have gone to a hospital and they would charged me 500 in the local currency. But what’s important to know is that the median monthly wages in the country were 25000 in the local currency. So all in all, you’d pay a smaller portion of your wages for a simple checkup.
I recently had skin cancer surgery. I was offered a 20% discount to self pay. Because of my deductible I would have paid more if I used insurance than if I just paid. We are now to the point where it's not cost effective to use our private insurance for cancer surgery. How anyone is defending this system is crazy to me.
My wife had a kidney transplant. Two of her medicines cost hundreds each per month with insurance, but without insurance are under one hundred each for three months.
Agreed. I have trouble squaring an argument like that with my own personal experience. (I also did not read the article, but I get the gist from the comments, for whatever that's worth.)
To take two ER-related examples:
• In the USA, I had some brief, sharp chest pain and my general practitioners office refused to set an appointment without be going to the ER. I was quite certain it was not a heart attack, but I complied. I was briefly triaged and not admitted. I believe the bill (with very good insurance) was more than 2000 USD.
• In Germany, my wife had an eye injury that required a trip to the ER. She was triaged, saw several doctors, including a specialist. She fortunately did not need treatment, but was required to check with another specialist within a few days to check how things were healing. There was no cost for this beyond our public insurance.
I can cite dozens of other examples where medicines were free/cheap, tests or specialists were covered by default, elective procedures were dramatically cheaper, etc. And this doesn't even include several fights with US insurance companies over tests that were recommended by a doctor.
Is the system here perfect? Certainly not, FAR from it. But it is a big reason why I'm not interested in moving back to the US.
Is a primary care physician what we would call a family doctor or general practitioner (GP) in the UK? In Norway an employed adult will pay about 240 NOK (about 22 USD) to visit their family doctor (allmennlege). I'm not sure what the rules are for the unemployed but I'm sure they pay less, children (under 18s), full time students, and pregnant women pay nothing. Median income is about 55 kNOK/month.
I don't normally have to wait unless I turn up at the surgery without an appointment. If the previous appointments run over I sometimes have to wait but rarely ore than half an hour.
I started and sold a company in the industry, and agree that macro level analysis misses this. In the us healthcare as a “product” has an AWFUL customer experience. On so many levels. And the worse it gets the more people want to “burn it all down”, despite the fact that it might not be as dire as we think when we do the high level analysis. Whether or not that’s a good thing is up for debate.
The outsize portion of gdp that healthcare takes up is why it is likely to bankrupt you in this country, although it isnt the reason for the lack of transparency.
Respectfully, a large number of people rightfully fear for their lives, safety, and freedom due to being stalked or abused by a current or former partner. I have personally known several.
Using victims' devices and communications in order to locate, and then harass, trap, or attack them, is commonplace for stalkers.
If you can use victim's device, then Tor or any network level protection will not help you. If you can use their network, then just about everything uses https these days... and you still need to know their location to snoop in the first place. GP raised a good point of Tor not helping in those two cases.
Those are situations that people deal with, but suggesting they use Tor is not going to help them. (Apart from some very specific situations)
How many of these people are justified (by evidence, not merely paranoia) in thinking that Tor would circumvent whatever communications interception may or may not have been put in place?
And of those people, how many people have ever even heard of Tor, let alone know how to use it?
What fraction of domestic violence shelter occupants are paranoid rather than reasonably fearful? What fraction are paranoid, vs. those who are reasonably afraid of being spied on in general? Probably some, but I believe many have well founded reasons to want to be anonymous and in hiding.
I concede that tor is probably not a useful tool in general for these people. I meant to point out only that one needn't be paranoid to fear one's spouse.
Not to make too much light of a morbid topic but the idea of someone having a murderous yet tech-savvy ex who has methodically installed all sorts of elaborate digital surveillance measures in their former spouse's personal tech stack in service of premeditated homicide, sitting in a dark room somewhere, howling in anger upon realizing his murder plan has (somehow...?) been thwarted by said former spouse unexpectedly using Tor is pretty funny (because of how outlandish it is). "I almost got away with it too, if it weren't for you kids and that onion routing software!"
You are lucky to have not experienced stalking. It's not like some big nefarious plan, it's a relentless obsessed hunter who will use whatever the lowest-hanging fruit is to get to you. If they have IT savvy they will use that. If they are charming they will use that. If they are brutal they will use that. They don't need to be murderous obviously, just obsessed with you.
Knowing that there's one thing they can't get to you on is huge peace of mind. Not needing to think about your stalker, because there's no way for them to hunt you there.
Stop thinking about cloak and dagger shit and start thinking about things ordinary people could do if they had a psychotic obsession, and nothing better to do with 120 hours a week of their time.
Stalkers want to make it impossible to live a normal life. They try to make it impossible to go to work or school, to use phones, email, messaging services, etc. Already knew my contact info, and got new ones by asking mutual friends. Called the the landline and cell and work phone and hung up or heavy-breathed into the phone hundreds of times a day. Telco won't help with this or admit who's doing it w/o a subpoena, which I couldn't realistically get. They tried to get various online accounts, including employer provided, to be flooded/brigaded/spamed/banned.
You don't have to be a leet haxor to do social engineering, sim swapping, and other crying on the phone to customer service type of attacks on other people's accounts. You just have to be pissed off and risk tolerant.
Not saying tor is a good-fit solution to these problems, just saying that "Because your ex-spouse wants to murder you", and also you have a day-to-day practical necessity to find a secure, hard to block way to communicate on, or access, the internet is not actually an exotic problem.
The author laments that there are a lack of anti-authoritarians in society, which strongly implies his intent is to redefine anti-authoritarians through his own lens.
It might hard to unscramble that omelet if we want the rule of law back later.