Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

>It puts those people in the executive hierarchy and makes them accountable to someone.

Again, that executive hierarchy has always been accountable to the courts.

Think about the difference between consulting independent agency lawyers vs the attorney general before taking action. What does that look like in practice? The attorney general and/or office of the president can now unilaterally decide that something grossly unconstitutional (e.g., eliminating birthright citizenship) is actually "legal" and instruct all federal employees to enact it on that basis. We then have to wait for courts to intervene, possibly for it to reach the supreme court, which could take a long time. In that time, the entire apparatus of the federal government would be engaged in gross violations of its citizens rights. Whereas before, the interpretation of the law would have been distributed across all the agencies, making it much harder to turn them toward nefarious ends.

Now let's go one step farther. Trump has already appointed cronies loyal to him to the federal agencies, so they won't go against him under any circumstance. As more of the federal workforce is replaced with loyal cronies (and that's indeed part of Project 2025), fewer and fewer barriers will stand in the way of complete dictatorship. Attacking the power of independent agencies is the first concrete step to making that happen.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/project-2025-would-...

Maybe you think Project 2025 isn't happening? You'd be wrong -- it's being enacted as we speak:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QGG6wNHna-1tt91yXNkO...




> The attorney general and/or office of the president can now unilaterally decide that something grossly unconstitutional (e.g., eliminating birthright citizenship) is actually "legal" and instruct all federal employees to enact it on that basis. We then have to wait for courts to intervene, possibly for it to reach the supreme court, which could take a long time.

If the president ordered something actually grossly unconstitutional (and reversing Wong Kim Ark, a decision that the Supreme Court itself was split on, is hardly a good example of that), it would be the senate's duty to impeach.

The legal system is indeed overly slow to come down on federal agencies that do the wrong thing. If your side is onboard with improving that, that's all to the good.

> Whereas before, the interpretation of the law would have been distributed across all the agencies, making it much harder to turn them toward nefarious ends.

Unaccountability cuts both ways. Yes, if each agency is doing its own interpretation of the law, that makes it harder for elected officials to control what those agencies do. I don't see that as a good thing.


>Yes, if each agency is doing its own interpretation of the law, that makes it harder for elected officials to control what those agencies do. I don't see that as a good thing.

Do you trust Congress to write clear and unequivocal laws? If so, there should be no issue in interpreting them. When there have been issues, the courts come in. This has always been a perfectly reasonable way to run the federal government. Even if you think they could be better aligned with the popular will, risking an all-out dictatorship is not the way to accomplish that.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: