There are good reasons to write representatives, such as when you think a local cause could use their intervention, or if you have constructive input on a bill they sponsored.
~Max
I’ll add a bit more - I’m not sure if you’ve read the Congressional Record or watched C-Span. Representatives often rely on constituent letters to provide what I call ‘impact statements’. If there’s a bill on the floor for say voting rights, a representative might quote a letter some old lady in his district wrote expressing concern that she wouldn’t be able to vote any more. Or a local business might have written a letter saying they’d need to close shop due to this new law. Or a small town mayor might be quoted saying the new infrastructure bill is estimated to bring $X into the community. etc. All that comes from letters. A good PR stunt is to take pictures with people after a bill helps them. One can even imagine a situation where the representative didn’t realize their bill adversely affected constituents, and changes his or her position. (Think letters from special interest groups.)
On something of a purely national and political theme, like the Presidential candidate’s vision of unitary executive theory, I don’t see how letters will be persuasive or otherwise helpful.
~Max
Good points. Ignorance fought!
Agreed.
Does this mean you are against the current conservative opinion on the administrative state? How does your support for unitary executive theory mix with the disdain conservatives have for the administrative state?
It depends… the current conservative opinion isn’t some monolith. I prefer a stronger doctrine of nondelegation. The power to regulate commerce among the several states is given to Congress, for example. Not to the President or any other department. Delegata potestas non potest delegari. It should be considered unconstitutional for Congress to pass a law stating it is illegal to possess controlled substances, yet leave it to the Attorney General to define what substances are considered controlled substances (as is done by 21 U.S. Code §§ 811-814 and §§ 841-856). This sort of puts me at odds with a stereotypical Republican hard-on-crime stance.
On the other hand, I encourage you to read Gundy v. United States, 588 U.S. ___ (2019). In that case the Court held that the Attorney General could establish rules for convicted sex offenders and prosecute them for failing to meet those rules. The ruling was 4+1 to 3, with Alito joining the liberal majority and with Kavanaugh recused. A similar case today would almost certainly come out the other way, which could have vast implications for the administrative state as we know it. A radical decision could cripple the federal government. Without proper restraint, chaos could ensue, a far worse outcome than dictatorship.
And this is at the court level, at the constitutional level, so it’s not responsive to political action.
The way the Supreme Court is leaning is also totally different from what Trump & co.'s vision, which is to control the administrative state like a dictatorship, not remove it.
~Max
On reconsideration, I’m not sure if you consider the Supreme Court tangent close enough to be on topic. I agree with that theory of executive vs legislative power, and even if I wanted to stop the Court, I don’t think there is or should be any way to do so. Though I recognize how radical and dangerous such an opinion is, I don’t see a way out of it except blind faith that the judges will continue to deny cert. Because there’s no chance of Congress reorganizing the federal government to remove the administrative state.
~Max
Could you explain what you mean by this?
But a president with unrestricted power could easily deny voters that periodic opportunity. And just qualifying “unrestricted” with “largely” doesn’t help – even if that periodic vote is enshrined and unblockable, a president with otherwise unrestricted power could easily undermine it or even ignore the results.
You either have laws, or you don’t. And if you do, the president needs to abide by them, or else you really have no laws.
I assumed he means overly strict adherence to rule of law, to the detriment of society - that would fit with the avatar.
~Max
I guess I’d need an example.
I’d refer you to another thread, where he gave an example,
Can we ever create a government that works well? Post #11
~Max
And unsurprisingly in a dictatorship such as the one you suppose, where the power to count votes lies with one man…. 98% of “voters “ would always choose to keep “Dear Leader”
Would this stance kill the border wall from being built?
That’s because “right” can mean whatever the folks in power deem it to mean. Stalin, Hitler and Mao all thought they were right. Trump, of course, always believes he is right.
Your argument is logically weak and morally repugnant.
Sounds like “if you’re afraid of what democracy will hand you, then turn to fascism” to me. Fascism is not courage.
The unitary executive notion is dangerous. The various executive departments have mandates to serve the public’s interest. These often require having apolitical professionals make decisions based on facts and logic. Sometimes these decisions require corporations to make less money, which is what this unitary executive crap is all about. Do we really want a president who is in the pocket of Big Oil to slash funding for alternative energy research and to gut environmental requlations? Do we want a president to have the ability to decimate public education? There is a lot of necessary bureaucratic activity that keeps the government machinery moving irrespective of which party is in the White House, and that is as it should be.
I’m not sure I understand, if we’re talking about, y’know, lawmakers.
Let’s say that someone wants to make something that’s currently legal illegal — or that they want to make something that’s currently illegal, well, legal — in which case, they’re clearly not limited by a What Is Legal Is By Definition Right mindset; the whole point is that they can propose a change in What Is Legal precisely by talking about how something else would be Right.
It’s that they’re saying, yeah, this isn’t currently legal, but the right thing to do would be to legalize it (or, again, look, obviously this is legal as of today, but I’m saying that it shouldn’t be; I’m saying that the right thing to do would be to make it illegal).
Isn’t that a commonplace? Don’t people in, uh, the West look at this or that law and say, oh, hey, we should change that, right?
I haven’t thought about how unitary executive theory relates to Trump’s border wall, but I’m going to draw a line here as I think that’s too far removed from the topic.
Now there is one thing I think could be done right now. You see, so long as Biden is president, he controls the Dept. of Justice. Sure, the DoJ (FBI, DEA, etc) is somewhat independent by tradition. But the Solicitor General has always been partial to the President’s politics when it comes to defending the President’s constitutional powers. Biden could purposely overstep his boundaries, using flimsy Trump style arguments. He could pick a favorable venue where the judges are likely to rule against him, and a favorable set of facts. This way he could build precedent to stack the courts against Trump or future wannabe dictators. Essentially pre-empt the unitary executive theory strategy, but purposely botch it in court.
The trouble is that the Republicans might impeach him for purposely breaking the law. They won’t care that Trump would abuse the office in a worse manner. There’s no chance of conviction in the Senate but it might not be wise to paint a target on Biden’s back before an election he’s running in.
~Max
Thanks for your response, it was interesting.
On Trump’s border wall I think the MQD and the unitary executive theory is highly appropriate to the conversation. We are talking billions of dollars that will have a huge effect on society being spent by an executive with a very flimsy tie to laws passed by Congress. If Trump becomes President again, I certainly hope somebody challenges on these grounds because it may shut it down, but at the least it would be amusing watching the conservatives on the court and elsewhere tie themselves into ideological pretzels trying to justify it.
I said I’d get back to you, and although later than I’d have liked, here I am.
And that’s the problem. Your vision of the UET (Unitary Executive Theory) is aspirational. I’m talking about what is actually happening. Moreover, Trump’s vision is now the one being carried out by those who once may have been more moderate. They are now fully onboard with the fascist model. I heard it reported only this morning that the Heritage Foundation has put together a list of 20,000 hard core MAGAs to take key spots in government if/when a Republican becomes president. Any Republican of whom they approve, not just Trump. The only requirement is loyalty to the MAGA model. They’re currently eyeballing Tim Scott.
I’m glad this is your response, because there is no other reasonable one, in my view.
I know greater weight is given to opinions expressed by voters who actually take the time to write a letter. The rule of thumb AIUI is that for every person who writes a letter, the representative assumes there are many more who feel the same way. So if enough people did this, there is a chance of moving a needle.
I disagree. I think if one writes to express one’s displeasure at any vote made by the representative that moves us closer to a dictatorship and that one will be watching to see if such votes are made by the representative, and the voter intends to act accordingly along with as many of their friends and family as they can possibly influence, then it can have an effect. Again, it only matters if enough people do this. You have to demonstrate that you’re paying attention and that you care.
I agree with your entire post but will highlight this portion especially. There is a global effort underway to deliver control to the Moneyed Class. The same characters are behind all of it. It’s why Republicans held their CPAC gathering in Hungary. They love Orbán as a model for what they want to do here. It’s why Mike Flynn turns up in Russia to dine with Putin, and why Steve Bannon and other familiar names turn up repeatedly in efforts to destroy democratic government such as Brexit.
No surprise to see Robert Mercer’s name there, too.
The same people were behind the efforts to undermine the elections in France and Germany.
Here in the US, they call it the Unitary Executive Theory because it sounds better than what it actually is: A fascist dictatorship that supports only the well-to-do.
Some think it can’t happen here. It’s already well underway here.
I happen to think they did in fact do a lot of damage during Trump’s first term in their efforts to further the UET.
In very short order:
Betsy DeVos was in charge of the Department of Education, taking apart public schooling as fast as she could.
Rick Perry was in charge of the Department of Energy, firing long-time employees and putting in place energy policies friendly to the moneyed class.
Rex Tillerson, former CEO of Exxon-Mobile, assumed control of the State Department. Think that was Trump’s idea? Right back to the Middle East and Putin’s Russia to exploit fossil fuels interests. Once Tillerson had had his fill, along came Mike Pompeo, who hollowed out our embassies and got rid of non-loyalists within the State Department. Do you know how few ambassadors we had during the Trump “administration”? Almost none. MAGAs don’t care about diplomacy. It takes time to put new people in place and for them to learn the intricacies of each country in carrying out their missions of diplomatic foreign policy.
Remember Ryan Zinke? He stayed busy as Secretary of the Interior handing over federal land, some already designated as national monument land, to (can you guess?) fossil fuels interests for exploitation and profit.
Let’s not overlook Scott Pruitt, coal guy and climate change denier, who ran the EPA under Trump.
What do you suppose happened to DOJ/FBI under the “stewardship” of Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr? Lots of loyalists are burrowed deep into those agencies now. It takes time to get rid of them, then train replacements.
Remind me: Who was appointed to run the US Postal Service in Trump’s term? Oh, yeah. That Louis DeJoy guy. His job was to undermine vote-by-mail. Did a pretty good job, too. He’s still there, waiting for his next chance.
It’s a good thing they didn’t find time to do much to damage immigration. Oh, wait.
In addition to the above, Trump pulled us out of the global climate accord; tore up the Iran nuclear deal which, while not perfect, was a hell of a lot better than what we have now; worked to pull us out of NATO and failing that, did everything he could to weaken the alliance; sabotaged Ukraine and tried to withhold necessary funding already approved by Congress to them; and worked diligently from practically his first moment as president to implement Schedule F, meant to weaken and all but eliminate federal civil service protections. These protections are what ensure consistency and continuity over administrations from one party to another.
Recall too how Trump supported Russia and disfavored the USA in virtually every interaction he had with Putin.
And while it didn’t happen on Trump’s watch, stacking the SCOTUS with Federalist Society loyalists is the reason Mitch McConnell was willing to do anything and everything he could to deny Obama seating any justice. This was a crucial piece in completing the UET government. Gotta have that SCOTUS in place to rubber stamp your UET government efforts.
Let’s also recall the back channel ties Trump was trying to build with the Middle East using Erik Prince and Blackwater. Blackwater started as a private security firm, but in many ways became a private military. Erik Prince’s Wikipedia is worth a read. You’ll find lots of familiar names.
Never forget that Gina Haspell, who ran the CIA, was Mike Pompeo’s personal pick for that job.
None of this even touches on the work being done by loyalists at the state level to undermine voting rights in as many ways as can possibly be done in as many states as will allow.
As I said in a previous post, this effort is well underway – and has already been successful to a frightening extent, both before, during and after Trump’s term.
Great post Aspenglow. I forgot about some of that stuff. And we should never ever forget.