Hacker News
points by hvb2 2 days ago | 0 comments
> 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.

[–] rayiner 2 days ago
> 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.

[–] hollerith 1 day ago
APA == the Administrative Procedure Act, enacted by Congress in 1946.

An unreliable source writes, "litigants frequently use the Administrative Procedure Act to argue that an agency acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, failed to follow required notice-and-comment procedures, or exceeded its statutory authority."

[–] khriss 2 days ago
> They would be horrified by how our government today

100%, just not in the direction you think. They would be apalled at Trump's blatant, in your face corruption all while the MAGA base cheers him on.

[–] tacitusarc 2 days ago
> The system was created with the assumption that the president would act cautiously and judiciously

I do not believe this is true historically

[–] vintermann 2 days ago
A common problem in systems where two branches of government have equal claim to popular mandate.