Very true! And your write it well. Although I've learned some new things in the past five years that I never knew. The Jacksonians, in the 1830s/1840s, thoroughly decentralized banking and finance, and while it was chipped away at over time, it wasnt until after WW2 that the big chipping occurred, their architecture, for the most part held, until it was mostly done away with away at between the late 1960s and early 1980s through a set of identifiable actions that verifiably occurred, that set of actions seems to be the physical actions core of the advent of the so called Neoliberal Era that we live in now and was also a necessary set of actions for the enabling of the so called "financialization" of our economy. The groundwork had been being laid for decades, but a little more slowly than I'd thought, for example, the Federal Reserve itself wasnt centralized until the Banking Act of 1935, also, there were pushbacks in various areas that had short term successes
"if you are the big tree, I have a small axe. sharpened to cut you down." Robert Marley. Like a big tree full of fungus and disease there's not much that can be done to fix it. When it dies there will be an opportunity for the young seedlings that struggle in its shadow to grow and flourish.
This is such a great question. (thinking.... thinking.... dial-up noise....) Assuming policy change means the Executive interpreting current statutes and setting policy, I don't know. But if you permit me to cheat a little, I'd say it would be to employ a litigation strategy where you find 10-20 cases brought against the federal government on Tenth Amendment grounds. (Lawyers have historically been afraid to do.) If just one of those cases establishes a new policy precedent -- rather like the overturning of Chevron just did -- I think it would create an opening, a means to dismantle so many unconstitutional agencies and actions, pushing them at least down to the states.
I don't feel confident about that. Tomorrow I might have a completely different notion.
I think it's fair to allow "a precedent from a case" or a "new executive interpretation" but those are often ephemeral - I really did mean "a policy enacted by a law from congress" that one would hope would out last the notably short attention spans at the White House. I have my doubts about how much detail the upcoming admin will place on executive stuff, and then of course 4 years from now it will be some other admin.
So I was trying for something a little more permanent, but I think you have a good point that stuff like precedent and Chevron would be a big deal. I am certainly no lawyers, is there a way to craft a law that essentially modifies the way all those regulatory-red-tape-delay-burden style laws work? Like: "congress says you have to put more weight on the value of the thing Not Being Built when assessing whether to allow something." That's obviously vague and open to debate, but something like that?
The real sh*t of it is that law (statute) and policy (rulemaking derived from statute) have been the norm for far too long. That's why I interpreted your term "policy" in light of the latter instead of the former sense.
If you're looking for a legislative solution, I will have to think long and hard about that, as there is too much division realistically to bring about Amendments.
totally agree, but I just mean normal laws - it doesn't have to be earthshattering and fix all the problems, just make some specific marginal improvement. As you say, there IS a lot of division amongst americans, and no one has the political capital to do controversial Big things, even if they would be good.
but to me that means what needs to be done instead is to do some minor, less-controversial thing that does have sufficient approval, and doesn't have too many veto-cracy points, that creates some short term appreciable change for people, in order to build political capital to do the bigger things later.
You're right, no one is going to be able to push some big Reform (everyone's still stung from the electoral fallout of PPACA) right now. But if there were a string of 5 minor but-positive-for-people victories to point to, then you might.
Maybe it's naive, but what's the only reason that anyone thinks that the whole DOGE thing might work, even a tiny bit? Because the person most associated with it has a reputation of solving hard problems. We can debate if that experience actually is relevant in the public sphere, but what it shows to me is that people are desperate for anything that even hints that the people who run the country will do good things and solve problems.
Just think what you could do with real actual legislative victories that actually increased freedom, or made people better off?
I would like to just go back to Article of Confederation but since we cannot have that, I am OK with just ignoring laws that the U.S. Government ignores. :)
Think Big as they say. I am very ambitious toward things people do not want to touch so eliminate the 435 different Federal Agencies under the Executive Branch then. ☺️
Good summation but I have to disagree with #3. Brutus said it better than I could, but he warned that the supremacy clause would undermine state sovereignty and create a powerful national government. I’d say he nailed it.
From Jefferson, from a letter to William B. Giles in 1825, half a year before his death:
I see… with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power.
Depending on how one interprets #3, I am inclined to agree. I tend to view the matter on a continuum, something like <Jefferson/Yates---Madison---Hamilton---Wilson/FDR> If we're thinking more along the continuum and not a strict binary, we started out at Jefferson/Yates and ended up at Wilson FDR, from which we have never recovered. I think Madison would have argued that #3 was the intent, but Yates would have been correct about the final outcome, notwithstanding the Bill of Rights.
Very true! And your write it well. Although I've learned some new things in the past five years that I never knew. The Jacksonians, in the 1830s/1840s, thoroughly decentralized banking and finance, and while it was chipped away at over time, it wasnt until after WW2 that the big chipping occurred, their architecture, for the most part held, until it was mostly done away with away at between the late 1960s and early 1980s through a set of identifiable actions that verifiably occurred, that set of actions seems to be the physical actions core of the advent of the so called Neoliberal Era that we live in now and was also a necessary set of actions for the enabling of the so called "financialization" of our economy. The groundwork had been being laid for decades, but a little more slowly than I'd thought, for example, the Federal Reserve itself wasnt centralized until the Banking Act of 1935, also, there were pushbacks in various areas that had short term successes
"if you are the big tree, I have a small axe. sharpened to cut you down." Robert Marley. Like a big tree full of fungus and disease there's not much that can be done to fix it. When it dies there will be an opportunity for the young seedlings that struggle in its shadow to grow and flourish.
What's the single simplest most-likely-to-be-approved, most impactful, policy change you could think of to help fix this?
This is such a great question. (thinking.... thinking.... dial-up noise....) Assuming policy change means the Executive interpreting current statutes and setting policy, I don't know. But if you permit me to cheat a little, I'd say it would be to employ a litigation strategy where you find 10-20 cases brought against the federal government on Tenth Amendment grounds. (Lawyers have historically been afraid to do.) If just one of those cases establishes a new policy precedent -- rather like the overturning of Chevron just did -- I think it would create an opening, a means to dismantle so many unconstitutional agencies and actions, pushing them at least down to the states.
I don't feel confident about that. Tomorrow I might have a completely different notion.
I think it's fair to allow "a precedent from a case" or a "new executive interpretation" but those are often ephemeral - I really did mean "a policy enacted by a law from congress" that one would hope would out last the notably short attention spans at the White House. I have my doubts about how much detail the upcoming admin will place on executive stuff, and then of course 4 years from now it will be some other admin.
So I was trying for something a little more permanent, but I think you have a good point that stuff like precedent and Chevron would be a big deal. I am certainly no lawyers, is there a way to craft a law that essentially modifies the way all those regulatory-red-tape-delay-burden style laws work? Like: "congress says you have to put more weight on the value of the thing Not Being Built when assessing whether to allow something." That's obviously vague and open to debate, but something like that?
The real sh*t of it is that law (statute) and policy (rulemaking derived from statute) have been the norm for far too long. That's why I interpreted your term "policy" in light of the latter instead of the former sense.
If you're looking for a legislative solution, I will have to think long and hard about that, as there is too much division realistically to bring about Amendments.
totally agree, but I just mean normal laws - it doesn't have to be earthshattering and fix all the problems, just make some specific marginal improvement. As you say, there IS a lot of division amongst americans, and no one has the political capital to do controversial Big things, even if they would be good.
but to me that means what needs to be done instead is to do some minor, less-controversial thing that does have sufficient approval, and doesn't have too many veto-cracy points, that creates some short term appreciable change for people, in order to build political capital to do the bigger things later.
You're right, no one is going to be able to push some big Reform (everyone's still stung from the electoral fallout of PPACA) right now. But if there were a string of 5 minor but-positive-for-people victories to point to, then you might.
Maybe it's naive, but what's the only reason that anyone thinks that the whole DOGE thing might work, even a tiny bit? Because the person most associated with it has a reputation of solving hard problems. We can debate if that experience actually is relevant in the public sphere, but what it shows to me is that people are desperate for anything that even hints that the people who run the country will do good things and solve problems.
Just think what you could do with real actual legislative victories that actually increased freedom, or made people better off?
What if it were something as simple as a majority of state legislatures (currently that would be 26) could overturn any federal bill?
I'd be open to it, but I mostly I don't know because I don't have a good feel for the quality of decision making by state legislators.
I would like to just go back to Article of Confederation but since we cannot have that, I am OK with just ignoring laws that the U.S. Government ignores. :)
I think there's a lot to be said for specific reversions to the AoC principles, are there any specific ones you'd like to see enshrined in modern law?
Abolishment of the Executive Branch would be a start. ☺️
haha, I think my goal is: small, less radical practical steps at first. How about a law limiting the scope of executive actions?
Think Big as they say. I am very ambitious toward things people do not want to touch so eliminate the 435 different Federal Agencies under the Executive Branch then. ☺️
Good summation but I have to disagree with #3. Brutus said it better than I could, but he warned that the supremacy clause would undermine state sovereignty and create a powerful national government. I’d say he nailed it.
Came across this just now:
From Jefferson, from a letter to William B. Giles in 1825, half a year before his death:
I see… with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power.
Great quote! I'm a big TJ fan and he was our best president, IMHO. He saw through Hamilton's desire for money & power: https://lizlasorte.substack.com/p/get-in-the-ring-thomas-jefferson?r=76q58
Depending on how one interprets #3, I am inclined to agree. I tend to view the matter on a continuum, something like <Jefferson/Yates---Madison---Hamilton---Wilson/FDR> If we're thinking more along the continuum and not a strict binary, we started out at Jefferson/Yates and ended up at Wilson FDR, from which we have never recovered. I think Madison would have argued that #3 was the intent, but Yates would have been correct about the final outcome, notwithstanding the Bill of Rights.