Under the constitution, the US federal government has far less power than, say the UK government does in comparison. Yet, if the other branches of government show no interest in constraining it, then it’ll expand rapidly.

I actually wonder if the problem the USA has is that its system has no override function like the UK does under the Parliament Act 1918. I see a lot of frustration that Congress has been deadlocked for nearly 2 decades (mostly by Republicans) so it’s no surprise the average voter demands change and wants the executive branch to take all the power.

A weaker federal government was always our design though. Really until the last century, our federal government was extremely weak and limited in authority. It wasn't until around FDR that we started seeing a shift if power to the federal government, often specifically to the executive branch.

The large executive branch has been growing since steadily since FDR though, that isn't a recent reaction to gridlock. There's a good argument that gridlock is a feature of our system meant to slow it down intentionally. We're seeing now how jarring it can be to have the government completely change source every 4 years, gridlock and bureaucracy help smooth that out.

We could be making it worse by demanding gridlock be avoided through executive actions and similar.

Sure, the system was designed to have gridlock, yet they're supposed to at least be able to operate the government. Currently, like pretty much every year lately, we're heading into March, And We Still Don't Have A Budget.

Now they're talking about keeping the government running on auto-pilot budgets all the way to September. [1] Doesn't even help that it's Rep. Exec. branch, Rep. Senate, Rep. House, Rep. Supreme Court, and Rep. Governor majority. Still a stopgap CR land where nothing gets advanced.

[1] https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/03/07/congress/ho...

Agreed the budget should be a non-starter. Meaning, they shouldn't be allowed to punt on agreeing to a budget deadline.

The budget is a weird topic when we consistently spend trillions in debt. I've found it hard for me to take budget debates too seriously when the idea of running such a deficit seems completely against any fundamental financial plan.

I'd care more about budget deadlines and temporary agreements if they were required to agree to a balanced budget.

Compared to historic USA, perhaps, but compared to OTHER COUNTRIES, the US system has insane gridlock and, right now, a very unhappy public. What I’m pointing to is not that more power should shift to the executive but that it should be given to the legislature, and could happen in a way that reduces this gridlock.

Compare to the UK’s Parliament Act, which allows the Commons to override the Lords if it passes the same legislation in two sessions. It means that overriding isn’t free (it takes 1-2 years of focused effort) but critical legislation can’t be blocked. Combined with strict timetables that force rejection of legislation that isn’t passed in its allotted time, you bypass the pocket veto, too. Compromise is preferred but, if the upper house refuses to play ball, the threat of ramming it through anyway always exists to keep it in check.

Honest question (including that since its sometimes hard to tell when written) -

What additional authority doss the US legislative branch need? They have pretty wide authority to create any laws that don't violate our constitutional rights, I don't know how we could really expand that further (but my view is definitely biased since I grew up here).

I think congress would be well within its rights to change their own rules to add time limits on legislation or required expiration on proposed bills, for example.

You’re thinking too high level and not looking at the mechanics. Congress has no power to, say, give the House of Representatives override the Senate and President. In the UK, this is not only possible but happened in 1918. The USA would require a constitutional amendment which falls into the same deadlock problem.

Some things do sit within Congress such as the Senate adopting the insane role allowing filibuster. However, this is also encouraged by the fact the Senate can kill legislation like this. Filibusters rarely happen in the UK Parliament because the majority party can force through legislation they feel is important enough.

You say that deadlock is built in as though this is desirable. However the public just became so frustrated by the system that they just elected a madman to smash it to pieces.

Encouraging compromise and working across the aisle is an excellent property in the US system. But that has broken down and I think part of the reason is there’s no mechanism to break the deadlock that can force parties back to the table.

We definitely agree on needing to better encourage compromise and collaboration. I'd much prefer that to be done by changing incentives rather than expanding powers though.

The US political system is completely broken with regards to lobbying and campaign finance. All the money floating around makes it nearly impossible for representatives to work across the aisle, or to ignore the aisle and vote for what their own state wants regardless of party.

I’m not talking about “expanding” power, merely proposing that the USA learn from other systems that have deadlock breaking systems, with limitations to mitigate abuse. I’m not sure taking money out the system will have the same effect, as we’ve seen Republicans gain a lot of political capital by just being obstructive since 2008.

Here is a example of an alternative system, that I would prefer: the legislative branch is the one that people vote for, (with proportional representation), and the legislative branch then elects the executive branch.

If there is ever a conflict between legislative and executive, then the legislative branch can remove the executive branch.

In other words: the president shouldn't be head of government (only head of state, sort of a figurehead).

Which other major countries have happier publics? The UK public seems at least as unhappy as the USA. UK citizens certainly aren't happy with low economic growth (everywhere outside London), high immigration, tiny houses, and decaying healthcare. Similar issues in Germany, etc.

I would argue that the much higher incidence rate of suicide and mass murder in the US compared to the UK or Germany suggests otherwise. Citizens in other developed countries seem much less prone to irrational, life changing outbreaks, that to me seems consistent with the idea that there is a deep current of unhappiness running through the American population that is causing people to “break”

Suicide rates are more a cultural artifact than a sign of national happiness level. The rates in an number of Arab countries are particularly low, even though people there seem to be deeply unhappy to the extent of trying to escape to Europe.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/suicide-r...

The US and Europe are culturally quite close, unlike to Arabia, so I think the comparison actually holds.

There is a compelling argument that the US is culturally much more like a highly developed version of a Latin American country than a European country. Over time I find myself coming around to this idea.

To the extent it's similar to any other culture I agree, the closest feels like brazil (to me) - but it's also very distinct, it's very much it's own thing in a way that few other cultures are (I would probably count the UK as one of those few by the way).

Latin America is all quite similar.

Mainland Europe is quite similar, bar the obvious exception.

Canada?

But the Donald is doing everything he can to stop that.

Canada and the US are very different places, I'm fairly astonished to hear that to be honest.

Canada may as well be British, except Quebec who are somehow more french than the french themselves.

if he is he’s doing a piss poor job of it (which of course is not surprising..) :)

I’d argue a lot of the unhappiness in the UK is a consequence of 5 years of a Tory government choosing not to govern. The public still have a hard time believing this fact because it sounds too insane to be true, no matter how much evidence we have for it!

Also, it doesn’t help that Labour are shit at comms. They’re actually doing what they were elected to do but don’t want to tell the public about it, much like the Biden administration!

But in the UK this effectively gives power to the executive. Our exec are drawn from the legislature, and most ruling party MPs will Have a government position - especially if the majority is slight.

It’s not a perfect system but it’s one that allows a party to push through the change they were voted to bring!

Should a minority of parliament, or the government in general, be able to force through what they think is best?

That seems like the kind of setup that works great until it goes very, very wrong.

It’s not a minority of Parliament though. It requires a majority vote, in two separate sessions, to be forced through (in essence, it takes up to 2 years). It’s not an easy system to abuse at all.

The UK's Constitution is the result of a literal war between the legislative and executive branches. The legislative branch won, and cut the King's head off.

> The executive branch shouldn't have nearly as much authority as it does and anything we want to be difficult to be undone should be protected by law

It doesn't matter if rights are protected by law, if the executive branch has no intention to enforce that law.

Right now the executive branch is plainly violating laws established by Congress, and there is no one to stop them.

The legislative and judicial branches are both expected to hold the executive accountable if it breaks the law. If that doesn't happen our system is fundamentally broken, we might as well throw it out and start over.

Is there any democratic system that is safe from democratically voting to dissolve the democracy and replace it with whatever autocracy/kakistocracy/oligarchy we've got now?

No, that's a fundamental risk built into democracy.

If any minority group has the power to overrule a majority vote, regardless of what the vote is for, then you don't really have a democracy.

No, every country is one election away from this shit-show.

Which is why under no circumstances you should ever elect anyone who will send yours in that direction. Canadians, take note, the CPC only detached its lips from Trump's backside because they needed to come up for air.

At minimum, don't elect people who staged failed coups. They and their supporters will not ever act like they are bound by law.

The executive branch has blatantly violated numerous laws but so far they have still obeyed court orders which explicitly required them to follow those laws. The real Constitutional crisis will come if they decide to openly defy a federal court order.

I would also note that while the current Trump administration has broken federal laws at an accelerated rate, the previous Biden administration did much the same thing on a smaller scale. People here on HN frequently make excuses for Biden's illegal student loan forgiveness program because they liked the results but if we want to preserve the rule of law then it needs to apply to every program. In the long run allowing unchecked growth of executive branch power and the administrative state will be bad for everyone.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-strikes-dow...

It's quite telling that you see this as remotely comparable to how the executive is being conducted right now.

Its quite telling to me that you don't.

In both cases the executive branch is overstepping legal bounds and attempting to take actions that it isn't legally authorized to do.

Right, continuing a tradition of executive overreach to help indebted students get the dick out of their ass is the exact same thing as dismantling the federal government, installing loyalists, betraying allies, allying with dictators, and promising lots of money to billionaires. I intend for it to be telling that I don't see them as the same. We don't even live on the same fucking planet.

The issue isn't why laws were breached, only that the executive branch intentionally broke them.

The why behind it matters most for how emotional of a response it will invoke, but maybe I'm preaching to the choir here.

I expect "illegal" action in the sense that it will sometimes turn out the executive doesn't have the authority to do it when tested by courts. I expect that to happen when the executive tries to push its agenda past an obstructionist Congress (for better or worse). It's not something I would consider "illegal" in the sense you could go to jail for doing it. But the reasons for acting a certain way absolutely matter here as they always do, and I am much more concerned about sanewashing with both-sideisms. Not just the reasons, but the extent to which he is willing to circumvent established systems of how basically everything works is much more concerning than attempting to pass EOs that are eventually struck down in the courts.

> Not just the reasons, but the extent to which he is willing to circumvent established systems of how basically everything works is much more concerning than attempting to pass EOs that are eventually struck down in the courts.

Hope you don't mind me continuing to pull on this thread, I'm genuinely interested to better understand where you have drawn the line here.

Biden was circumventing established systems when he tried to cancel student debts. He even tried again when the first attempt was blocked. Our higher education system, legal framework around student debt, and the debt industry as a whole was very well established and legally defined.

What is so different with Trump's executive orders? I get that you disagree with them, I disagree with many of them too, but legally I just don't see much light between the two. They both abuse executive orders in an attempt to Dodge existing legislation on the books and make change that the office has no authority to make.

One intended to help relieve people's debts and the other attempts to dismantle the government and remove those who oppose him. I don't understand how you don't understand how they are categorically different actions, even if both are illegal. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. To reiterate

> dismantling the federal government, installing loyalists, betraying allies, allying with dictators, and promising lots of money to billionaires

while lying about everything.

>People here on HN frequently make excuses for Biden's illegal student loan forgiveness program because

Biden didn't do anything you suggest. You're consuming the propaganda. George Bush made it so that Federal workers with student loans could get them discharged at X years of service. X just happened to fall into Trump's first term.

Trump broke the promise made to people doing their civic duty, Biden repaired it.

Biden never took on more authority than what was established almost two decades ago.

Biden was absolutely trying to cancel, or partially pay for, any federally backed loans and pell grants [1]. It wasn't limited only to federal employees with student debt.

[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/student-loan-forgiveness-applic...

I haven't consumed any propaganda. I read the Supreme Court opinion in Biden v. Nebraska. You should do the same instead of making things up.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf

Lawyers are paid very well to present the best case possible for their client, you can't honestly believe that every detail of the events are going to be submitted as evidence, right?

How do you distinguish between propaganda and a lawyer arguing a political policy on behalf of the president of the united states, with the understanding that a lawyer should make the most compelling case they possibly can? Its political, its a one-sided view, its cherry picked, and its meant to persuade the target audience to believe a certain point - that sounds pretty propagandistic to me.

That's a total non sequitur. Did you even read it? I linked to the final Supreme Court opinion, not the arguments made by lawyers on opposing sides or exhibits entered into evidence by the trial court.

Its not a non sequitur. The court can only rule based on what was admitted into the record, and that's controlled by the lawyers who as I said earlier are there to make the best case for their client, not the most complete and accurate case.

Again a total non sequitur. Both sides had ample opportunity to present evidence and make their arguments. If you think something was missed or wrongly decided then be specific and provide citations.

In theory, that isn't too far from the system we have. The President was never meant to have so much authority, and Congress already requires a 2/3 majority in order to make certain kinds of decisions, including overruling a presidential veto.

Didn't congress change the rules a few years ago on only needing a simple majority for more things?

I was living out if the country st the time and didn't keep up, I could be mistaken there.

There was some debate whether or not to remove the rule requiring a 60% vote to end filibusters in the Senate. Because this rule still stands, most laws cannot pass without 60 Senators' votes. Budget reconciliation bills, however, can be advanced with only a simple majority of the Senate. Though this is not a recent rules change, much recent legislation has gone through the reconciliation process to avoid the supermajority requirement.

Thanks! That must be the debate I remember happening and thought they actually made the change.

And sadly the Dems were all too willing to consolidate this power in the Executive because of expediency.

Both parties have consolidated power to the executive branch for decades, this isn't a one party problem.

It started with Lincoln and was expanded by Wilson and FDR.

That's fair, Lincoln did kick it off. I've always considered it more that Lincoln crested the precedent that was only really used layer by FDR, but maybe that's ignoring nuance of how powers were expanded between the two.

Before Lincoln states had much more power. Both Lincoln and Wilson curtailed civil liberties. Wilson created the income tax which gave the president a large source of income. FDR created the bureaucracy that spends the income tax money.

No, it's not only executive branch. People voted in Trump adorers to majority in both Senate and House of Representatives.

If the voting public of a democracy fairly elected so many people to office like that, I don't really know what we can complain about.

Democracy would have worked in that scenario, and society would just have bifurcated enough that the slight minority lost most power and very much disagrees with the direction.

Congress does have to act pike adults though and do their job of keeping the executive branch in check. If they don't the system is just fundamentally broken and the only reasonable choice is to throw it out and start fresh.

The word “fairly” is doing a lot of work there. There has been a lot of success on one side to tilt things with redistricting and voter suppression since the 80s.

Just wait till 2028!

Redistricting and voter suppression are definitely a problem. If they were both done in a way that was technically legal though, we can't be too angry about it before we change the laws that allowed it in the first place.

Fairness in the context of an election only means that it was done in accordance to the existing laws. Maybe equal access to voting needs to be on that list too, but I'd expect that to be covered by voting laws.

The purpose of the laws should be to ensure fairness. Fairness is not defined by the law. Unless you consider it was fair for women not to be able to vote, when that was the law.

There have been many attempts to fix districting laws, but of course those changes have to be approved by representatives elected under the previous laws.

It has been difficult to challenge these in court because it’s hard to argue whether a districting is “fair”. There has been a little progress on challenging some districting based on a statistical argument that shows the one-party advantage resulting from the particular districting is extremely unlikely to be the result of chance.