We are perhaps 3 years away from a SCOTUS decision finding that the powers entailed to the legislative branch in Article I can only be properly executed through rulings of the executive, in whom constitutional authority is housed

POTUS: piece of turd on US

Potus doesn't understand anything at all about large scale economics - his monetary competency is in the area of the self serving grift. I can only imagine the many ways Vance has learned from his master to rob and terrify the American people.

So apparently nuclear reactors and the military will soon be run by social the media influencers with the most “likes.”

Sounds like he’s arguing since America elected Trump, Trump gets to do whatever he wants for the next four years. Not so. I can hire a contractor to redo the bathroom, that doesn’t mean he gets full reign of the house.

This MF

JD Vance a man of character a man who always says what he doesn't mean and never know what the fuck he's saying.

As preposterous as this notion is, I might be open to it if the president in question weren’t a complete fucking retard. An 8-year-old has more emotional control and cognitive power than Donald Trump lol.

The Heritage Foundation and Project 2025 🐙 see my pinned was NOT elected by anyone!!!

Of course the law insulating the Fed from direct presidential control was passed by a representative body that itself has democratic legitimacy. In the Madisonian Constitution that might matter In the Schmittian Constitution, though, Congress ain't the avatar of the Volk

The President was elected so nothing he says can be wrong. I am very smart. And I’m Chief Justice of the scotus.

it is a real problem that none of the people who interview these guys are equipped to ask a question like, “what gives this president greater legitimacy than a law passed by a democratically-elected legislature, signed by a previous president and affirmed by subsequent legislatures and presidents?”

You can’t possibly expect us to understand things that haven’t happened in the last fifteen minutes jamelle

Someone let me interview slash cross examine J.D. Vance please

Says something about the intellect of TV "journalists" who reach this level. TBH it's what the MSM execs want.

You had me at “none of the people who interview these guys are equipped….”

cc: @usatoday.com Francesca Chambers. Chambers' interview WASN'T journalism. It was stenography. It was gaslighting. It was an infomercial for JD Vance. And it was a big shameful FAILURE! The thing is, JD Vance only agrees to be interviewed by reporters he knows won't challenge him. And she didn't!

All of those "bureaucrats" were appointed by elected Presidents and confirmed by mostly elected Senators (giving room for those appointed of course).

Or even: “Why does this president possess so many powers than no previous president (including this president) has ever had?”

A lot of journalists see asking those tough questions as inherently "picking a side," which is insane way to approach an interview

Yeah but if they asked that they might not get their precious ~*access*~ (that they do nothing with). Doing something with access isn't useful it's just having it so you can feel special and elite.

Seems to me this argument applies to all those dismissals from agencies where Congress protected the incumbents from political pressure. Also, would Congress have created agencies at all if they could be controlled by the President? The point of agencies is to apply experties, not politics.

If we get the chance, I think it’s imperative that we strengthen the Constitutional legitimacy of our administrative institutions. Perhaps not to the extent of a 4th branch, but enough to expressly legitimize the APA kludge.

Yeah I think it's pretty clear that the Constitution should acknowledge the administrative state in some way, shape, or form

So many things were done as super-statutes that should’ve been done as amendments in the first place.

The unitary executive always boils down to Schmitt in the end.

Note too that Vance implicitly rejects that Fed removals even need to be for-cause, though that’s what SCOTUS apparently thinks the law should be and thinks it has made clear in its orders

The law passed by an elected Congress, plus they were all appointed by an elected president (including by this one!) and confirmed by the elected Senate.

The republican principle is eminently satisfied! The People are setting monetary policy through their representatives! It's all fine!

I agree with you that the Trumpist approach is pre-eminently Schmittian, but though experiment/inquiry time! How much, though, might it also owe to a Rosseauian approach to the unitary idea of the General Will, with Trump and his movement somehow embodying the same genuine will of the people.

It's the same line of descent. Schmitt critiqued Rousseau some but it was as a kind of Roussean revisionist, he agreed with most of the premise and explicitly based a lot of his own theory on it. Many have argued JJR was the proto-totalitarian and there's a fair amount of truth in that.

Yeah. I think Rousseau was quite genuinely not a Nazi, but it's a hop, skip, and a jump from him to the Nazis

Basically if you run Rousseau's theories but take away even a little bit of his genuine concern for the common good, you get Nazis

You can cut him some slack because during his lifetime he has very little direct experience with secular tyrants chose by the people to embody the general will.

If we're contrasting with Schmitt, I think it's quite notable that Rosseau never contemplates particular executives embodying the general will, but something that wavers between a massive legislative body, a town meeting from hell, and a supernatural vibe detector. No individualist dictators there.

Yeah he would hate that modification of Schmitt's with a passion. He hates the whole device of representation, and Schmitt takes it to the extreme (making him an unholy fusion of Rousseau with Hobbes)

Yes, that was part of Schmitt's critique basically. As ever, he asked the right questions and then chose the worst answers.

For the most part I think his heart was genuinely in the right place!

Yes that's my point. He was trying to do something better but not understanding how things would ... get out of hand because it had never been tried. As opposed to Schmitt.

There's an alternate timeline where he lives another 20 or 25 years and the revolution never gets any bloodier than Lafayette becoming prime minister in a moderate-liberal constitutional monarchy.

For sure. He wasn't evil and he wasn't wrong about everything. But he was wrong in some very consequential ways.

There is a big difference between being wrong because he didn't know how some of his theories would manifest in real life vs Schmitt who was wrong after seeing what his theories did to the world.

Right. He didn't have the racialism and eugenics and social Darwinism etc., but those aren't the hot molten core of it, which is why they don't show up much in Schmitt, either. He very pointedly pretended to not even care who in particular ended up on which side of the friend/enemy distinction.

Yeah. Rousseau is pretty explicit that his system only works in a small and homogeneous community!

The ever-popular spherical cow of political philosophy.

Turns out if you wish away the central problem of political life, politics gets easier! (In your mind, anyway)

If only we didn't have to do complex things

Great example of a high brow Bluesky conversation. Can't wait for MAGA folks to add to it given their history of intellectual acumen.

after all congress could abolish the fed or make it non-independent at will.

Josh Chafetz lays this out really well, in this podcast among other places. I know you both are conlaw and election experts but in case others want to listen fyi! podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a...

📌

Passed by an elected Congress and *signed into law* by an elected president.

Thank you! That saved me a research.

I’m sure the markets will be thrilled.

He's an idiot.

Nonsense. His bankruptcy history says otherwise.

So, JD, do we want someone who went bankrupt 6 times in the casino business, with no understanding of economics to be running the Federal Reserve?

People, please, Trump knows better than the economists

And the thing is the orange demagogue 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘴 that all these sickoplants (not a misspelling), hangers on, foreign leaders and even his enemies praising him are lying through their teeth but they do it anyways. 🧐 This doesn't make him angry, it's proof positive that he has 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦 control over them. 🙇

What a moron. How did he ever get into Yale?

Wait? I thought the POTUS was America's Hitler?

There’s literally nothing Vance won’t say to kiss Trump’s ass.

He is a screwball!!!

Huh. Well, if we are firing people for criminal behavior, in addition to POTUS, would someone please come and take the Texas AG?

This clown works for a 34 times convicted felon! Law and order my ass.

As he ousts #farmers and buys their land. He is a skeez.

Vance is a true dumbass.

Absolutely. I definitely think the only casino owner in history who so successfully disproved the long held belief that "the house always wins" would know more about economic policy than economists. We will continue to be in "monkey with a gun" territory until further notice.

Better than the cats and dogs in the Depts of State, DOJ and Executive.

Wrong. Just wrong . . . another one from the make America ghastly again GOP mob.

either yale law's 1L con law curriculum needs to be scrapped (ya know, the whole "the congress shall have power... to coin money, regulate the value thereof" thing) or their financial office needs to come clean on who *cough* peter thiel *cough* actually paid vance's tuition

It's not the professors' fault

You can lead the Minion with an American flag hat to water, but you can't make him drink.

idk, their track record isn't so hot. vance, alito, thomas, kavanaugh... we should at least be open to some skepticism. if not the professors, then definitely the admissions office

Also, you know, me

(both posts are semi-tongue in cheek btw, i'm very much team 'thiel probably bribed someone to get him in')

You know what? The fucked up thing is that Trump is doing this to avance his autocrat goals, but the people should be demanding the end of this Central Bank independence because it does not serve its interests. One more example of why they are winning the political war.

Dude is such a cumsock.

This is a fundamentally insane and terrifying philosophy.

Imagine being so dumb that you think Don Trump knows jack squat about economics. 😝

alright, i guess we should hold the Supreme Court to the same standards then next time Dems are in power. why should they make law when the American people haven't had a chance to weigh in?

That won't happen because Leonard Leo says otherwise.

a Monarchy after winning an election 51-49

49-47, really

Republicans have always claimed a mandate from God when barely winning an election.