I think most people agree on that point, but what are truckers going to do after they lose jobs to the robots? In the USA, there is never any planning for that, they just say "oh well" and in a generation those folks die out, having lived a shitty, destitute life with no chance of recovery.
The fact that there are too few younger truck drivers means that most young people have already found higher paying, better jobs than current truck driving jobs.
There's an ideological assertion when automation happens: the workers will retrain and be better off.
If it was true, Youngstown Ohio and Flint Michigan would be jewels of the Midwest - bustling metropolises of highly skilled retrained workers in wondrous utopias. You'd have AI unicorns popping out of Huntington and Wheeling, West Virginia.
Whether you count number of bankruptcies, overall mortality rate, number of offspring, percentage that own versus rent... The fervent assertion that going from a union job to hustling for say Postmates, is somehow the rising tide lifting all boats is baseless.
Doesn't matter though. It's ideologically, not materially based so evidence is irrelevant.
There Are state interventionist ways to make it work. China moved from agrarian to industrial. South Korea, Taiwan Japan.... The difference is they don't have this pentacostal snake handling level blind faith in the free market where they go around like Peter Popof preaching Hayek and Rothbard like it's sacred scripture.
Annapolis smacks you upside your head whenever you start to get an ego about having come from Annapolis, so most of the people I know get along fine with ROTC or other sources of officers. Generally, the political connections come from outside the experience at the academy, most of the folks I went there with were just regular people with no political connections, and today they are still just regular people. The folks who rise to the top like Captains or Admirals all have the connections they have from their families or elsewhere.
Yup. My dad retired as a bird colonel and went to Baylor, then OCS. And I think Colonel Day who lived across the street came from a random university in Iowa. But my dad had more than 10 air medals, a couple DFCs, multiple-award silver star, bronze star w/ V and Colonel Day had the most amazing array of ribbons topped with a CMH. So another way is to kick ass and get a lot of awards. Though I don't know if that gets you into the General ranks. I think there's an assumption that Generals have to be pretty politically aware and people who rack up the medals and awards may be "opinionated." I mean... there's a reason John McCain retired as a Captain and not an Admiral, despite family connections.
Which is to say... I think you're onto a general rule, but like everything else there are exceptions.
It wouldn't even be hard to achieve security: (1) sandboxing, (2) permissions system, (3) database of bad app signatures, (4) heuristics based monitoring. Most of this is already in place. There's no excuse except money and power.
That’s a pretty broad statement, and sure, you can get an OS with neither, but broadly speaking modern operating systems that people use do have sandboxing and permissions.
In fact, when Congress passes a budget, it’s actually a law that must be executed by the executive. There are actually other laws against impoundment and against the executive changing the budget.
Trump is literally breaking the law but no one really cares to discuss that anymore since the gish gallop has be so quick this term.
AIUI Congress has not passed a budget in a long time. They pass "continuing resolutions" and they fund broad categories of spending and leave the details up to the funded entities (which then falls under the executive branch).
If Congress wants to fund something specific, they need to pass a law or budget that names that specific thing and how much they are appropriating. They aren't doing that.
Well, it's not that simple. Yes, Congress passes the bill saying that X billions of dollars have to be spent on universities, but that bill does not name every single university in US as beneficiary. That's what executive branch is for: to work out the details of how to implement the law passed by Congress.
So, Trump taking money from Harvard and giving it to say, a community college in Tampa is technically still correct implementation of the law. I mean, it all depends if he can defend his decision in court, because of course he cannot discriminate based on race, ethnicity, political affiliation etc.
It may not be unlawful, but institutions work best when there is stability of practice, even across leadership changes. Otherwise, you can’t do any long-range planning or undertake complex experiments or investments that could take years to bear fruit.
We used to have a shared sense of custom and mores that helped preserve this stability. But that seems to be out the window now, and regrettably so.
I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that Trump is breaking the law. I'm no expert in NSF funding, but Congress may well have delegated its authority over how the funds in the pool are to be allocated and distributed to the executive.
If someone has more knowledge to contribute, that'd be most welcome.
Clear example here is USAID. Congress has directed, as recently as March 2025, that a specific amount of funds be spent on the statutory goals of the US Agency for International Development. (I have not checked, but I am sure federal law also goes into some detail about what tasks USAID needs to perform.)
I do not imagine it is congruent with the law to simply fire all the staff and shut down USAID (or "merge" it into State).
The laws are all public and people are free to read that a few weeks ago, Congress directed the Executive to spend money as USAID for the statutory purposes behind USAID. That part is pretty clear.
With NSF grants, the question is whether the President can redistribute funding away from applicants affiliated with specific institutions he doesn’t like (my first approximation: probably).
With USAID, the question is whether the President has the authority to disband an entire Agency established and appropriated by Congress (22 U.S.C. 6563) (my first approximation: probably not).
Point taken. I was mostly addressing the larger question of whether the Executive is breaking the law wrt appropriations. Likely yes.
With science funding grants, the administration likely has latitude to make some changes, but the specifics of that latitude are going to be embedded in a thicket of overlapping statutes of different vintages.
Without going through all the specific statutes, I relied on the suggestion that if they are okay breaking the law around USAID funding passed in March, they likely are not going to find religion and adhere to laws governing science funding. But I guess anything's possible.
That is not a final word on the constitutionality of dissolving USAID, but it's an indication that the Court didn't believe plaintiffs had a high likelihood of success on the merits to justify the preliminary injunction.
The recent SCOTUS opinion that the President's official actions are not bound by the laws of man does provide a clear line of sight to really any action taken by the Executive branch. So it may not really even be productive to discuss limits on Executive power anymore.
That is in fact not what the Supreme Court said. It said that the President has immunity for “official acts,” just like Congress members and judges.
Say a judge dismisses an indictment of an accused murderer because the police didn’t have a proper search warrant. Then the accused murderer kills someone else. That could fall within the letter of “negligent homicide” laws, but the judge can’t be prosecuted for that because judges have absolute immunity for official acts.
Similarly, a red state prosecutor could have tried to prosecute Biden for something like negligent homicide on the theory that his opening of the boarder was a negligent act that resulted in deaths. Obviously you can’t do that, because the President has immunity for official acts. It would be completely insane if the President didn’t have immunity. President do lots of things which cause people to be killed, property to be destroyed, etc. You could prosecute those as crimes if you literally applied the criminal laws.
I agree with you here. I also think that (allegedly) ignoring federal statutes while reorganizing the government is pretty clearly an official act. So everything we are discussing is an official act.
If the Executive isn’t bound to follow federal appropriations laws, there’s no principled reason why he should have to follow other federal laws. And as you show, the president has full criminal immunity as well.
What other laws are there that might limit his conduct? I’m of the understanding that where we are now is the only potential check on Presidents going forward is impeachment and removal from office. It’s a blunt instrument, but apparently there are no other applicable mechanisms.
> What other laws are there that might limit his conduct? I’m of the understanding that where we are now is the only potential check on Presidents going forward is impeachment and removal from office. It’s a blunt instrument, but apparently there are no other applicable mechanisms.
The primary check on the President is elections, not “the law.” Secondarily, there’s impeachment, and Congress’s power of the purse. Those are the main checks on the executive.
We have this 20th century conception of “the rule of law,” where we imagine this neutral, independent “justice system” as the base layer on top of which the elected branches operate. Like the lowest level of an operating system kernel. But if you look at the debates at the constitutional convention, and read the federalist papers and anti-federalist papers, that’s not the system the founders actually created. The founders didn’t trust anyone to neutrally enforce the law. You won’t find anywhere in those primary sources where the founders envisioned some “rule of law” where private litigants use the court to micromanage executive policy.
Instead, what we have is a game of rock-paper-scissors, where no branch is assumed to be “independent” and no branch is a “base layer of the operating system.” Courts can declare the law, but can’t force the President to do something. But if the President doesn’t listen to the court, he can be voted out of office, or impeached, or Congress can withhold funding for the administration. That is a complete system of checks and balances as it is.
> You won’t find anywhere in those primary sources where the founders envisioned some “rule of law” where private litigants use the court to micromanage executive policy.
Marbury vs Madison established the judiciaries authority to review actions of the executive. That was in 1803.
Regarding rule of law, in that opinion:
> When the heads of the departments of the Government are the political or confidential officers of the Executive, merely to execute the will of the President, or rather to act in cases in which the Executive possesses a constitutional or legal discretion, nothing can be more perfectly clear than that their acts are only politically examinable. But where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, it seems equally clear that the individual who considers himself injured has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy.
1) Isn’t part of the founding sources I mentioned. It was quite controversial at the time.
2) Stands for exactly the opposite of what you’re arguing. Marbury goes to great lengths to disclaim any authority over executive policymaking and discretion, and limit courts to compelling executive officers to act only when the duties are specifically assigned by law and ministerial:
> This is not a proceeding which may be varied if the judgment of the Executive shall suggest one more eligible, but is a precise course accurately marked out by law, and is to be strictly pursued. It is the duty of the Secretary of State to conform to the law, and in this he is an officer of the United States, bound to obey the laws. He acts, in this respect, as has been very properly stated at the bar, under the authority of law, and not by the instructions of the President. It is a ministerial act which the law enjoins on a particular officer for a particular purpose.
And even after determining that delivery of the already executed commission is a ministerial act, the Court went out of its way to invoke a jurisdictional escape hatch to avoid actually enjoining an executive officer. A fair application of Marbury would preclude the sweeping powers courts have asserted to micromanage executive action in response to private litigation.
In Marbury, the court ruled that Marbury had already been appointed when the previous president signed his commission, and the only thing that remained was the purely ministerial act of the secretary of state delivering the signed letter that was sitting in the president’s desk. But even then, the Court found a way to avoid compelling the secretary of state to actually deliver the commission! How would the Marbury court view the prospect of a district court ordering the president to turn around military planes being used to deport an admitted El Salvadoran citizen? Or district courts ordering the President to reach out to a foreign country’s president to demand the return of that foreign country’s citizen! The Marbury court wouldn’t have dreamed of it!
What Marbury stands for is that the judicial branch can declare the legality of laws and executive actions, but should bend over backwards to avoid actually compelling the executive to perform any action.
> The primary check on the President is elections, not “the law.” Secondarily, there’s impeachment, and Congress’s power of the purse.
Right, that's where this discussion started. What we are looking at right now is the erosion of that second piece, Congress's power of the purse. The Constitutional checks and balances (not the 20th-century stuff you detail) doesn't work as well without this key Article I power. I have not seen it explained under what principle this power of Congress has been arrogated instead to the Executive.
It wasn’t done based on principle but laziness. Congress undoubtedly has the power to leave some particulars of how to spend money up to the President. But Congress has abused that power to basically provide the executive with giant slush funds with only the vaguest directions as to how to use that money. Congress can take that power back at any time.
You're not wrong. If the President does not follow a federal law, he is not performing an official act, and he is not immune from criminal liability.
If he chooses to continue to ignore the law, the solution isn't the courts. It's the Second Amendment, which was added to the Bill of Rights as a check on exactly this (though the Founders intended for it to be exercised through the States' militias, not the citizens directly, based on the text of the first half of the amendment).
Before resorting to violence, the remedy is to impeach and convict the President, and, failing that, elect a replacement President. Only if the incumbent fails to cede authority should further consideration be taken.
And, to be honest, I’m not really sure that a bunch of unorganized wingnuts that slobber all over their big-man toys are going to prevail over the National Guard, if the latter remain loyal to the President, and a lot of innocent lives will probably be lost due to militia incompetence.
Biden didn't ignore immigration law. He executed it. He arrested more immigrants than Trump did during his first term. Republicans simply disagreed about how he was executing the laws because they wanted political talking points (and notably at Trump's urging, shot down a number of proposed immigration reforms that would have reduced illegal immigration, cut down on the asylum loophole, and make it easier to deport immigrants with criminal records...Laken Riley was killed by an illegal immigrant who was still in the country because Republicans blocked the laws that would have deported him.).
Trump isn't following the laws at all. He's simply issuing "executive orders" without regard to the powers or limitations of the executive as stated by the Constitution or the U.S. Code. Almost every single one of his executive orders during his second term violates a Constitutional prohibition in some way, and now that the initial shock to the system is over you're seeing judges overturn almost all of his orders...Even judges appointed by Trump during his first term are starting to overturn his executive orders.
So Trump's response was to call for the arrest of these judges. And to hint that violence would be appropriate way of removing them from.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If Trump gets killed by a mob this term, it's going to be because he kept suggesting that violence was the way to deal with his opponents.
There are all kinds of laws that limit president's conduct, but the point is that there is no way to actually enforce these laws, other than voluntary compliance by the president and his government, and impeachment by legislature. This is by design, that's how the separation of powers works.
Why do you assume that the person you're responding to is "jumping to conclusions." Feels like you're just ignoring what they have to say in the guise of "asking for more knowledge" when you don't actually know if they don't have the knowledge because of your own lack of expertise.
> Why do you assume that the person you're responding to is "jumping to conclusions.”
Because they said “Trump is literally breaking the law.” That hasn’t been established yet.
I happen to be an attorney as well as a hacker, and I worked in a Federal district court, so perhaps give me the benefit of the doubt that I just might know what I’m talking about. If you have legitimate questions of your own, I’d be happy to try to answer them.
That’s why I’m a software developer though, because I learned the footguns in the standard library. I use it before third party libraries whenever I can. I can’t understand the fear, just learn your job.
SIPR is easy to access, there are terminals all over. We had SIPR laptops in cabinets no one ever used. TS/SCI not so much, but there are still SCIFs on every military base and there are a lot of those. Not having access to proper facilities is a bad excuse for the people who work with the president.
I have been keeping track of new documents that seem interesting (especially Presidential docs, recently) in the Federal Register for a few years now, but it started having a 403 error in the past week or so. Anyone else having issues or just me?
It's concerning that this site has a 403, to me. It is one of the (in my opinion at least) foundational things in a free society to have open and transparent document access for laws or proclamations of whatever type.
Foreigners are always good as a target for blame, but much more wealth has been transferred from American workers to the Oligarch class than via trade deficits. What we have here is a class war, not a war against other working class people in other countries, but the wealthy are winning it without firing a shot.
reply