logoalt Hacker News

hvb2 • yesterday at 9:35 PM • 2 replies • view on HN

> But that still doesn’t allow the bureaucracy invoking HR rules to protect itself against the actions of the elected branches.

It's not hr writing the rules here. It's them enforcing what they were given.

Also, they're not saying he cannot do what they want to do. It's that the law prescribes that certain things need to happen first.

Those rules were given to them by elected people in Congress.

Edit:

To add

> But the President doesn’t need a court ruling giving permission before he exercises his powers.

The system was created with the assumption that the president would act cautiously and judiciously. This administration doesn't care about whether something is lawful. When you act fast enough the damage will be done before your called out on it.

South Korea saw a president declare martial law and the other branches held him accountable very quickly. I am not convinced the US in the current state would.


Replies

rayiner • today at 1:40 AM

> The system was created with the assumption that the president would act cautiously and judiciously

Not at all. The founders were focused on having a vigorous executive who could “just do things.” https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed70.asp. The system they created is not based on the premise of cautious bureaucracy. It was based on having frequent elections that would empower a vigorous president and political appointees to carry out what they had campaigned on.

The founders were men of action. They would be horrified by how our government today is run by lawyers through APA litigation. The HR-ification of the American government is a mid-20th century invention.

tacitusarc • yesterday at 10:28 PM

> The system was created with the assumption that the president would act cautiously and judiciously

I do not believe this is true historically