logoalt Hacker News

apple4ever02/20/20256 repliesview on HN

>setting up the president as the sole power center is an inherently unstable system.

But that is what the Constitution specifies (Article II Section 1):

> The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

I find it funny people either don't know this or are intentionally ignoring it. The entire power is vested in one person, who can delegate the enforcement of it to lower officers.

> Nothing prevents the next president from having a radically different opinion. There is a very good reason why the founding fathers built in an elaborate system of checks and balances.

Right, thats why they included a legislative branch and a judicial branch. The problem is the legislative branch delegated much of what it does to the executive, and the judicial said it was okay.


Replies

Nevermark02/20/2025

All three branches of the government are beholden to the Constitution as a whole, and to each other based on the Constitutional roles and their expressions of their roles.

All government actors individually are also responsible to the Constitution and its expression by all three branches first, before any loyalty to anyone else. In the same branch or not.

Even before the current top office holders of the executive branch, congressional majorities, or Supreme Court justices.

Saying that a President’s personal interpretation of Congress’ laws or the courts precedence, completely overrides any individual executive employees good faith understanding and responsibility to the Constitution, laws, and judicial rulings is madness.

There will be disagreements within a branch that will need to be worked out. The president certainly has more power and deserves special respect. But his helpers must stand firm with the constitution first.

Settling Constitutional level disagreements within a branch is a desirable process. The president, and all government actors, need pushback when they start running into the weeds, and vetting when their take seems Constitutionally risky or outright invalid. Taking into full account all valid standing orders, laws and rulings.

The Presidents most important advisors are subject to Senate approval precisely because they are supposed to be loyal to the Constitution and laws first.

If the president says he believes arresting disagreeable members of the Supreme Court is Constitutionally supported because yadda, yadda, yadda, you don’t do it.

If the President directs the Vice President not to certify an election, because he interprets that role as active and worthy of pauses and delays to settle issues the President deems Constitutionslly important during an election…

But you the Vice President, after careful thought and consultation believe your role is ceremonial, you fulfill the ceremony.

show 1 reply
ineptech02/20/2025

When Congress passes a law saying, "create an agency that sets rules about air pollution, whose director is appointed by the president", the constitution demands that the executive branch do exactly that. Interpreting that to mean "The president personally sets rules about air pollution, using an agency if he likes" is unconstitutional and I think the vast majority of both parties agreed on this for most of the last hundred years.

show 1 reply
kelnos02/20/2025

No, that's not what it says. The part you quoted says that executive power is vested in the president. Legislative and judicial power are vested in other bodies that are not accountable to the president.

dwallin02/20/2025

The constitution also explicitly sets up formal departments with specific purviews, with heads that need to be approved by congress. It also outlines that the president has the right to get the opinion of said principal offices about their duties (while seemingly failing to state any right to direct said opinions) This implies that the president’s executive authority over the departments is far from absolute, since if it was, why would you need to explicitly bestow a right to merely seek opinions?

If anything, the constitution implies that department heads SHOULD have independent opinions related to the purview of their departments.

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

linkregister02/20/2025

"The Congress shall have Power ... [long list of various government functions and agencies] ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof" - Article 1, §8, United States Constitution.

In practice, government agencies are primarily required to adhere to U.S. Code (list of laws compiled from bills passed in Congress). Then they consider executive orders.

Your mental model of the executive branch is a commonly held one. However, you should adjust your model to incorporate this information which may have been omitted from your initial training data set.

refurb02/20/2025

[flagged]

show 3 replies