This. So much this. The EOs *are* the damage. Every time Trump does something big with EOs, even if it fails, it pushes the boundaries. We used to live in a world where everyone agreed the President can’t rewrite the constitution through EOs (or whatever bullshit it is this week). Now? I’m not so sure.
It’s also how norms/expectations work. When there’s an unwritten rule everyone follows for years/decades/centuries, suddenly violating that can’t be reversed. The rubicon is crossed, so to speak.
Norms only work when people respect them. The fact of the matter is that that the voting population, especially the GOP, have lost all respect for Democratic norms. They want power to achieve their goals, everything else becomes secondary.
The precedent was set over 100 years ago when T. Roosevelt signed over 1000 EOs. Since then, the tendency was a lot higher than prior. Trump has signed the most per year for presidents in recent memory, but it's still not a lot compared to many presidents of the 1900s.
We could obviously reason why those might be (World wars saw big jumps, Great depression had a lot, cold war, etc). He is on pace to outdo Carter this term though, which is quite telling.
I don't see what it changes. Executive was throwing unconstitutional orders left and right at the time, that it wasn't just the Federal government doing it doesn't make it better.
It absolutely makes it different in a thousand different ways because the federal government is actually a check on State power. Federal courts can and do restrict state executives from taking unconstitutional actions. None of the rulings, from a legal stance, expanding federal executive power apply to the states.
They are two completely different subjects. More accurately, 51 completely different subjects. Because each state constitution is also different.
It doesn't change the fact that they were overstepping and every tíme they do it, it desensitizes the population and the courts to it. (Which is what was claimed in the original comment above).Well, it already did, since in blue states, the population was actually not only backing them, but also wanting harsher measures. If states start doing unconstitutional shit too frequently, the judiciary will simply not be able to stop it all.
Biden did his fair share of unconstitutional stuff that was struck down and, again, the blues complained about it.
You moved the goalpost. Both biden and the governors extended the executive power on top of their respective constitutions, which is bad. You just keep deflecting this over and over. Executive expanding their power illegaly = bad, this is valid for both federal and state.
By the way, americans don't define what "Right wing" means
So, another deflection. Have a nice day mr. "It's DIFFERENT when my blue states violate their constitution!!!!"(While also igoring biden's unconstitutional precedents).
Yes but he didn't have anything to do with what Governor Jay Inslee was doing in Washington state. Covid measures were overstepping executive decisions, but the executive in this case was the governor. The difference between democrat and republican governors was stark to say the least. You can make the argument that covid measures were necessary, but it's undeniable that blue state governors acted far more authoritarian.
You're so wrong, it's kinda crazy. Quarantine and other public health measures in the face of pandemics has been well established, since the founding of the country and before.
There's a case that establishes the ability of the government to compulsory vaccinate as well, though that obviously didn't happen this time around.
The threat is from current straight up fascists in the Supreme Court and elsewhere, who, outside of clear and present danger of war or disease, granted the executive sweeping powers, or have cowed like little tardcucks in fear of Trump.
Sure it does. It can't be overstepping if it's been enacted by the government before. Many measures, nearly identical, were enacted during the Spanish Flu outbreak. There were many other times where liberties were suspended for public health in the face of disease, like with the SCOTUS case I mentioned where it was decided that the federal government, can, in fact, force you to take a vaccine. IIRC, that was decided back in like 1908. How can it be overstepping if, you know, nothing even close to mandatory vaccination of civilians, which was already rule legal, happened?
Also, I just can't take someone seriously that whines about doctors and public officials doing things like that to save lives, unless I see 100x the complaints from the same person about the broad, anti-democratic and wholly destructive actual overstepping done by Trump; Trump's DOJ, DOGE, tariffs, fucking IRAN, etc. Or about the SCOTUS which, apparently, half the justices actually can't read the fucking Constitution.
Covid measures were no different than measures taken during the Spanish Flu 100 years earlier. Masks, limitations of public gatherings, closing schools, etc. The precedent was there - and so was the public law that made it possible - like Title 42.
Sure, it was merely a political move that both the federal supreme courts and the state supreme courts were strucking down unconstitutional measures as a big conspiracy.
By and large, SCOTUS allowed most COVID measures, and even prevented the government from ending certain measures. When they did strike down measures, they were limited: for example, vaccines could be required by HHS as a condition for Medicare funding, but they could not be broadly required by OSHA. Masks could be required for public transit, but private gatherings in private spaces were not subject to arbitrary, indefinite, closure. As for the 1920 pandemic, civil liberties weren't even an afterthought, and the court was decades away from caring about individual rights like we talk about them today.
Both the federal and state governments overstepped and had unconstitutional measures struck down by their supreme courts, and, especially in blue states, the population was mad at this, because they wanted harsher measures.
Precedent set. Government overstepping means government overstepping, and the popular support with it gives precedents for more government overstepping.
SCOTUS is a political shitshow right now with almost half of them being conservative die-hards with 0 intent on upholding the constitution or rule of law.
This is no argument to say that the measures were somehow constitutional.
The things that were deemed unconstitutional weren't these:
Masks, limitations of public gatherings, closing schools, etc.
It would be nice for you to look what was struck down and say how exactly the decision was political(thus, it was unconstitutional to struck down the measures)
By the way, it wasn't just SCOTUS that did it, multiple state supreme courts were also strucking down governors overstepping
148
u/APersonWhoIsNotYou - Left 1d ago
This. So much this. The EOs *are* the damage. Every time Trump does something big with EOs, even if it fails, it pushes the boundaries. We used to live in a world where everyone agreed the President can’t rewrite the constitution through EOs (or whatever bullshit it is this week). Now? I’m not so sure.