Yes. I am not defending the decision mind you. I dont think it was a good one, but IANAL.
but isn’t Trump trying to impose a “loyalty oath” for Civil Service employees?
It does seem, however, that a President can now reach straight down into Civil Service positions through the the presidential appointments the POTUS now controls directly.
“Get something on this turbulent priest in your organization and fire them for cause within 30 days – or I’ll replace you with someone who will.”
Tried and nope-
Washington, DC** —
The Trump White House has retreated from a directive requiring most federal civilian job applicants to write an essay on how they would “help advance the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities” following a legal complaint from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Instead, applicants will be instructed that their “responses are not required and will not be scored.”**
The Americans perceived those checks and balances to have broken down, specifically any check on the House of Commons’ power to tax the (unrepresented) colonists. The British system, at the time, does not resemble the British system today. This was before judicial review, before the Lords lost their veto, before devolution, and before Parliament entertained votes of no confidence. Britain’s eighteenth-century political system precariously balanced the Crown, the aristocracy, and the commoners. There are multiple reasons Americans rejected this system. Britain never extended its peerage system to colonial America in the first place, meaning the elite in the colonies were not represented in Parliament. In theory, the Commons represented the colonists. In practice, the colonies did not have seats but were only represented “virtually”. Even then, mid-eighteenth century British politics featured extensive bribery and cronyism, and far more rotten boroughs than today. The disparity in political power was only compounded by the difficulty in staying on top of intrigue given a monthslong communication delay.
You may wish to ask the British that question–in the 1650s. In the minds of late eighteenth century American rebels, Cromwell’s Protectorate represented the very definition of “dictatorship”. The concept of representative democracy would have been equated with local state governments; in fact, noted American rebel Alexander Hamilton coined the term “representative democracy” to describe the Constitution of New York in 1777.
During the rebellion and for a few years after the Treaty of Paris, the newly christened United States governed itself as a literal confederation of soveriegn States, not unlike the European Union. These States jealously guarded their sovereignty, withholding from the national legislature even the power to tax. Each State elected its own governor, had its own legislature, incurred its own debts, passed its own laws, maintained its own military forces, and imposed its own trade policy. The national head of state, President of the United States in Congress Assembled, was a ceremonial figurehead. Their names are not taught in American schools. This was the system of government that the founding fathers chose after throwing off the British yoke.
It turned out this was not a workable system. The individual States, having no incentive to work together, each pursued their own interests.
The king of New York levied imposts on Jersey and Connecticut; and the nobles of Virginia bore with impatience their tributary dependence on Baltimore and Philadelphia. Our discontents were fermenting into civil war; and that would have multiplied and exasperated our discontents. ~Fisher Ames, The Dangers of American Liberty (1805)
The death knell of the confederacy came when Shays’s Rebellion broke out in Massachussets. Local militia forces could barely defend the armories due to widespread sympathy for their neighbors. Due to the dysfunction of the confederate Congress, there was no national army to put down the rebellion. Massachussets ultimately had to solicit its merchant class to privately fund a military force to suppress the rebellion.
The 1787 Constitution was a rescue mission to find a middle ground between a king and total anarchy, and even that system is very different than the one we have today.
~Max
Good read.
Are you seriously saying that slavery is acceptable punishment for felons?
I wouldn’t say so in the sense that one might be bought or sold. But it’s fair to put convicted felons to work breaking rocks or doing something else, isn’t it?
In most states, incarcerated prisoners who do work while imprisoned in the U.S. do get paid; they don’t get paid a lot, but I suspect that part of the reason for the pay is to avoid accusations of slave labor.
That case gives up the game. They utterly failed to draw a distinction based on legal principles between the president firing a fed governor and firing an ftc commissioner and it’s now obvious that the only difference is policy preference. They want the president to be able to meddle with federal functions they don’t like or dont personally valie the independence of while protecting the federal functions they fo like and do value the importance of independence. The fig leaf “explanation” that we had the first bank of the US early in our history is meritless.
“Most incarcerated workers in the United States earn between $0.12 and $1.15 per hour, and seven states pay nothing at all for regular prison jobs. Federal inmates doing routine facility work start at $0.12 an hour, while those in federal prison industries top out around $1.15. State pay varies widely, but the national average for non-industry prison labor sits near $0.63 per hour. These wages fall far below any minimum wage, and after mandatory deductions, the actual spending money left over can be startlingly small.” How Much Do Prisoners Get Paid: Federal and State Rates - LegalClarity
That is practically nothing. It’s still slavery. Prisoners should be paid minimum wage at minimum.
Having this source of pseudo-slave labor gives incentives to companies that hire that labor to perpetuate the system.
Also, we know that the American justice system has historical inequalities, and these punishments disproportionately affect minorities and poor people.
I think that being able to force prisoners (duly convicted through due process) to work is morally acceptable, but I also think that it’s unwise for a number of reasons. If the goal is to get the work done, you’ll probably get a much higher quality of work by making it optional and paying, and if the goal is rehabilitation, then you’ll also get better results with voluntary and paid work. Forced unpaid work would be more effective as a punishment, but I think that punishment is, in itself, a bad goal for prisons.
Just throwing the word “slavery” around doesnt mean the Prison system has to be thrown out. More death penalty instead? What?
Right.
Fine by me. They committed a felony.
Sure, then we bill them for food, etc, so they end up owning.
That would be my thought: if it’s fair to pay them for their labor, is it fair to charge them for room and board?
(And what about restitution for their victims?)
Good point- and yeah take from their wages to pay the victims. So, they get nothing- net.
The problem is that some people think some words are magic- Genocide, Fascism, Slavery, and once you invoke them, no one can disagree.
Isn’t the issues with prisons in the US that it is a $4bn industry run by for-profit organisations and paid per-prisoner? That seems like an inherently bad idea.
Some are, but it’s a relatively small percentage; about 8% of incarcerated people are in privately-run prisons. The vast majority of prisons are still run by the states, and the Feds.
Please note that this is not to say that I think that any prisoners should be in for-profit prisons; the entire idea is awful, IMO.
No doubt though- due mainly to the so-called and failed “war on drugs”- the US does have too many men incarcerated. Newsom did commute a lot of non-violent Marijuana prisoners, and some other governors did similar.
Yep, I concur.
You can add “prisoner” and “felon” to that list.
On the other hand, many state level prisons and criminal justice systems were and often are still used to provide a source of cheap labor. So, while they aren’t for-profits, directly, there is often still a profit motive and a perverse incentive when it comes to incarceration. Many states would suddenly find their economies suddenly losing billions of dollars if the practice was ended.