As Mr. Rogers’ mom told him, “Look for the helpers.” Congress didn’t get here on their own. The right-wing justices on the Supreme Court are the helpers.

That is just a surface level rot. This goes clear to the Federalist Society, its operatives and donors. For decades.

Until people realize that 2000 and 2016 mattered, they will be unable to comprehend how foolish it was to sit out elections, or agree with feckless also rans like Nader and Stein. 'Uncommitted' hits different when it's followed by 'to democracy.'

Power of the purse? Gone Impeachment? Gone Advice and consent? Gone War powers? Gone Literally the power to impose taxes? Gone, gone, gone Like what's left??

They’re the Presidential Typing Pool now.

Part of the reason I say to end the filibuster (once/if Ds have control)

Advisory fuckin body. They rubber stamped the worst cabinet in history.

The only two things it still does is omnibus spending bills (and debt ceiling stuff) that set a ceiling on spend, with subspending in it openly ignored and unclear if that would be circumvented in any case, and maybe confirming federal judges. Everything else at this point is actively suspended

I remain curious if the upper bounds on spending are being observed

Feel like we haven't ever really had a thorough accounting of whether the Appropriations Clause is being observed right now

I think it just hasn't come up yet, but if it did, particularly if via some cliff, I think they would outright ignore it.

The administration is knowlingly breaking the Anti-Impoundment and Anti-Deficiency Acts every day in every department. Why wouldn't they? Every criminal has an implicit promise of pardon, the President has immunity, and the Congress wants it, as does the Court.

Confirmation is only a senate power. The house has basically voted itself into an almost do nothing job

I want to abolish the Senate, not nullify the House.

Yup

Mike Johnson is a total cuck

AFAIK, they also still certify presidential election results, too. It remains to be seen whether that's still true, but it won't be tested until 2029. Probably something about congressional elections/qualifications, too, which will remain untested until at least after the midterms, maybe January.

Folks love to say Congress has been broken for a long time, and they're not wrong, but this is still a total collapse in the institution compared with trump I or any other period in US history

Only the US could invent state of exception via legislature

The antebellum period. And really it is more a matter of who sits in Congress. The Republicans have abandoned the powers but, at least to this point, the Democrats have not. But who knows if they can retake them, especially with a complaisant Supreme Court? The war powers were never as much

held by Congress as the Constitution mandated. Adventurism has long been part of US governance, going back to Monroe at least.

The people I am looking for are the ones analogous to the early Republicans who are willing to stand up and assert those powers. And there are a few. We all know their names. But this is not going to be a battle quickly won.

Maybe more than a few. If we can manage to get the Democrats a majority in at least the House I think there is some hope. But we are going to have to work hard for that.

it's OK, Trump is only primus inter pares, the Senate still totally has all those powers

I'd like to add that the reason the institution has failed is because of the people operating it: the voters and their representatives. Without that lifeblood, Congress is an idea--an actor in the network expressed by text. How We, the People move it from psychical to physical landscapes is on us.

Throw in bullshit investigations / hearings and “I have filed a bill” (which is still treated as if it means something)

I’ve been trying to figure out a frame for a book I want to write about Reed Smoot and tariffs, and recently came to the conclusion that the story is how his (and others’, but I’ll focus on him) love of/frustration with tariffs represented a major step in ceding Congressional power to the president.

Ooh interesting

I’ve spent the last week or so looking for reasons why the taxing power is in Congress (and I have info on it!) instead of writing. But I really need to start writing.

Hashtag relatable

Okay, inspired, I tried to draft an opening couple paragraphs. Is this a book that looks like it would be worth reading (assuming I can pull it off)? (Also, the final draft will be more polished--this is literally something I put on paper in five minutes to try to create momentum.)

Ooh, yes!

I'm taking this as a promise to read draft chapters when they're done! (Okay, kinda jk--I know you have a lot of stuff you need to be doing more than reading my draft chapters. But at the very least I'm going to ask you if you have time.) And thanks!

Haha, happy to be asked!

This is good.

Thank you!

My question is what happens to all the money from the canceled and clawed backed money that the administration has stolen? Are they free to spend it or does it return to the treasury?

According to the Appropriations Clause, it must be the latter However, I am, shall we say, suspicious

I would think there'd be an accounting of it, but who knows what you could trust today.

(It turns out he was a big fan and supporter of the flexible tariff, where Congress still enacts it but the President can flip it on or off.)

If it doesn’t further the goals of the “Project” they’re completely uninterested.

It retains a third function, but isn’t in use today: weaponizing discovery and subpoena power to damage Democrats politically

so they're just the government accountants then? Well, they don't need to be a separate branch then, we can give them a small wing in the executive and be done with the legislature entirely.

I look at it and can’t help thinking it was the intended outcome by both parties.

I mean it makes sense from a game theory standpoint. Neither party stands to gain anything from exercising power or obstructing it. Both have made all in bets they will ride out the Trump regime so they can fight some other battle later. That is the same wager they've been making for years.

I don't think it's a question of intent. I genuinely think if you ask minority and majority leaders off the record they will say, this is what we have to do to save the Republic. And they would be right, except they are wrong.

There we go, someone finally dares to say it.

I’ve been saying both parties in Congress have been intentionally collaborating to enable Trump for a while. That conclusion seems inescapable.

No one wants to acknowledge this obvious truth because it's too bleak and hopeless.

I don’t think it changes much. The establishment Dems have been an obvious problem for a long time.

Not much of anything, really other than a salary, great health insurance and a pension. That said, even Hitler kept the Reichstag around after the Enabling Act, so Congress will probably linger on with a similar toothless existence.

Soundbite creation meetings, rubber stamp judges, and gazing at the "blow up the economy by having the US gov't default" button

I think at this point it's simply expected to rubberstamp appointees. Congress has become a Soviet legislature.

Good thing nothing bad happened to the Roman Republic when the Senate became a rump institution

Shoot, I don’t have the details in my online notes, but literally the Framers pointed to Congress’s power of the purse as the meaningful check on the president becoming a king.

Indeed!

not unreasonably, given the events that had led to the English civil wars of the mid-1600s

Okay, here it is. And I'm quoting from the recent Federal Circuit opinion, p. 12 of the PDF (I have to run down the original, but I don't need to do that yet): 1/

"[W]hen Patrick Henry expressed concern that the President 'may easily become a king,' ... James Madison replied that this would not occur because '[t]he purse is in the hands of the representatives of the people.'" 2/

(The opinion cites 3 Debates in the Several State Conventions 58, 393.) 3/3

All for the worst, dumbest man on earth.

Collecting bribes?

If I recall correctly, Locke says this is a dissolution of the government itself and could be tantamount to entering a state of war with the people.

oversight? Also gone

their own raises?