Hacker News

points by wat10000 3 days ago | 0 comments

Ridiculous as it may be, I'm not sure the argument is incorrect under the law. The president is the ultimate classification authority. The only reason he was prosecuted for mishandling classified documents previously is because that was after he left office.

The American system of executive power needs a major rethink. For decades, Congress has given up more and more power to the executive under the assumption that the president will be a careful steward of those powers. This was a dumb decision at the time and it's made quite obvious now that an absolute cretin holds the office.

Unfortunately, I don't imagine we'll get that rethink. Instead, we'll just try to fix it by giving somebody else too much power and hoping they use it better.

[–] throwawayffffas 3 days ago

The question is not around classification but of ownership and especially of the ownership of the documents after the president leaves office. The argument is that the documents generated during the presidency are the personal property of the president.

[–] BoxOfRain 3 days ago

I wonder what is causing the centralisation around the executive branch in Western democracies? While the US is the more extreme example of the phenomenon, in the UK power has been consolidating in Number 10 for decades and the PM role has become more presidential than tradition dictates; compare say Tony Blair who was a very personal leader with Clement Attlee whose leadership style was more collaborative. The two systems are very different constitutionally, so it feels like there's broader factors causing this.

[–] wat10000 3 days ago

In the US, I think a big factor was world events getting so much faster while Congress did not. For an extreme example, the President has the authority to unilaterally launch a massive nuclear strike, because there wouldn’t be time to get Congress together in a crisis.

It also seems to be a way for Congress to dodge responsibility. If you pass legislation to fix something by giving the president powers, you can claim credit. If it goes wrong, you can blame the president.

[–] AngryData 3 days ago

Wealth is the problem. Wealth buys media, PR, and propaganda. Wealth buys positions of viable candidacy. No body even thinks it is remotely possible for some rando off the street to get elected to a federal office, not because they lack intelligence or policy or anything, entirely because they need massive amounts of wealth to even be seen over the cacophony of others backed by a million+ dollars worth of megaphones. But of course after these powerful and/or wealthy assholes gain position they need to hold it, and since they lack a backbone or coherent policy they just keep passing the buck to everyone else which eventually ends up in the executive's lap.

[–] pjc50 3 days ago

The UK is very good at getting rid of individual PMs. Larry the Downing Street cat has seen seven of them since 2011.

The PM has a lot of power, but is very dependent on MP support.

[–] BoxOfRain 3 days ago

I'd argue it's actually the Tories who are good at getting rid of individual PMs, the 1922 Committee gives their backbenchers a built-in regicide mechanism and the wider party has a culture of using it; even surviving the vote can hole a PM below the waterline. Labour leaders are harder to remove, Jeremy Corbyn for example survived his attempted deposition in 2016 and Reform's leadership entrenches the party leader further still. Having said that recent events support you more than me maybe, since Labour successfully deposed a sitting PM much in the same way the Tories repeatedly did.

Of course any PM still depends on Parliamentary support, by definition the Prime Minister is the one who can convince the monarch they can form a government which has the confidence of the House of Commons. My complaints of presidentialisation are more in the centralisation of power around Number 10, Blair was particularly known for it but it's been basically all of them in recent history.

[–] SAI_Peregrinus 3 days ago

Congress created the laws which allow classification & declassification. The president is the authority over what gets classified, but should still be required to follow the procedures for doing so.

[–] wat10000 3 days ago

Are those procedures described in law or were they created by the executive?

[–] atmavatar 3 days ago

Declassifying documents is completely within Trump's purview, but surely selling classified documents runs afoul of the emoluments clause in Article II, Section 1.

[–] ballmerpoint 3 days ago

It should, I agree, but in practice the enforcement mechanism no longer functions.

[–] dylan604 3 days ago

How are they selling classified anything if he's already declassified them? According to Trump, he can declassify anything be declaring he declassified them.