# Authoritarian  vs. Constitutional control



## Mark

there is a fascinating article over on The Atlantic that discusses a relevant issue to 2020 America.



> When the state is in dire peril, ...  state leaders have the right to suspend constitutional norms, especially provisions for civil rights.




the context of the article is about China using a 1930's Nazi  promoted theory to legitimise China's  intrusive measures to overturn freedoms in Hong Kong.

but the implications for this holds true for 2020 America as well.

Attorney General Barr has used this concept most often, in his saying that a sitting President is in fact the law.  L'État, c'est moi. Nothing s/he does can be investigated even or found to be illegal.

it was  the Judicial Branch of government however  (very different from the Justice Department)  that  figured in during this past half-year to combat corruption from the Executive branch and stagnation from the Legislative branch.

i think that America's division of government was the mechanism that allowed the rule of law (the Constitution) to overcome the Statist / Authoritarian elements that have been running amok for 4 years, and attempt to carry out a de facto coup d'etat.









						The Nazi Inspiring China’s Communists
					

A decades-old legal argument used by Hitler has found support in Beijing.




					www.theatlantic.com


----------



## Gutwrench

Mark said:


> Attorney General Barr has used this concept most often, in his saying that a sitting President is in fact the law.  L'État, c'est moi. Nothing s/he does can be investigated even or found to be illegal.




What? What?


----------



## Renzatic

Gutwrench said:


> What? What?




The ideal of an unassailable executive branch is something that Barr has long since been known to believe in.

Bill Barr's Dangerous Pursuit of Executive Power - The Atlantic


----------



## Gutwrench

Renzatic said:


> The ideal of an unassailable executive branch is something that Barr has long since been known to believe in.
> 
> Bill Barr's Dangerous Pursuit of Executive Power - The Atlantic




Let’s read what Barr wrote and drop the rhetoric. But setting the Atlanitic and your opinion aside @mark’s claim is factually untrue.



			https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/attorney-general-william-barr-written-statement-for-the-record-may-1-2019-senate-judiciary-committee.pdf


----------



## Renzatic

Gutwrench said:


> Let’s read what Barr wrote and drop the rhetoric. But setting the Atlanitic and your opinion aside @mark’s claim is factually untrue.




Mark is guilty of some hyperbole, yeah. Barr's ultimate goal with the executive branch isn't to create an American le Roi Soleil, but he does aim to create an environment where it isn't so easily burdened by the other branches. Through his own actions, he has done a great deal to protect the presidency from the fallout of its own decisions.

There's also this, which is mentioned at the start of the article I linked to above. Barr did greatly downplay the scope and findings of the Mueller report, and your link above was the eventual response to criticisms of such.

Read Attorney General William Barr’s Summary of the Mueller Report - The New York Times (nytimes.com)


----------



## Gutwrench

Renzatic said:


> Mark is guilty of some hyperbole, yeah. Barr's ultimate goal with the executive branch isn't to create an American le Roi Soleil, but he does aim to create an environment where it isn't so easily burdened by the other branches. Through his own actions, he has done a great deal to protect the presidency from the fallout of its own decisions.
> 
> There's also this, which is mentioned at the start of the article I linked to above. Barr did greatly downplay the scope and findings of the Mueller report, and your link above was the eventual response to criticisms of such.
> 
> Read Attorney General William Barr’s Summary of the Mueller Report - The New York Times (nytimes.com)




What in Barr’s summary of March 24 that you linked was marginally different than what is in the statement of May 1 that I provided?

Sure, hyperbole presented as fact is an enormous problem. It feeds directly into the hysteria I’ve written about.


----------



## SuperMatt

Gutwrench said:


> What in Barr’s summary of March 24 that you linked was marginally different than what is in the statement of May 1 that I provided?
> 
> Sure, hyperbole presented as fact is an enormous problem. It feeds directly into the hysteria I’ve written about.



Reading that summary is disturbing to me. A Trump political appointee determined these things:

”After the Special Counsel submitted the confidential report on March 22, I determined that it was in the public interest for the Department to announce the investigation’s bottom-line conclusions—that is, the determination whether a provable crime has been committed or not.” - The infamous summary that intentionally gave people a false impression that the President had been exonerated.

Regarding obstruction of justice: “After carefully reviewing the facts and legal theories outlined in the report, and in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other Department lawyers, the Deputy Attorney General and I concluded that, under the principles of federal prosecution, the evidence developed by the Special Counsel would not be sufficient to charge the President with an obstruction-of-justice offense.”

We need a better independent counsel law. An investigation like this should be untouchable by the President. When his personally-appointed Attorney General can unilaterally make decisions like the quote above, the idea of investigating the president is, quite literally, a joke. The Kenneth Starr fiasco was heinous too in its own way; he had unlimited freedom to pursue anything, even stuff that had nothing to do with the initial case... so we got an impeachment based on conduct that was never under investigation in the first place. The pendulum swung way too far towards benefit of the executive branch this time though. Time to find something in the middle: a way to investigate an allegedly corrupt or criminal president, without letting a loyalist crush it, but also not letting them go so far astray of the initial investigation that we are looking at 20-year old parking tickets.


----------



## Renzatic

Gutwrench said:


> What in Barr’s summary of March 24 that you linked was marginally different than what is in the statement of May 1 that I provided?
> 
> Sure, hyperbole presented as fact is an enormous problem. It feeds directly into the hysteria I’ve written about.




The initial reading was an attempt to soften the blow of the findings of the Mueller report, and the May 1st statement was the justification for such.

Keep in mind that I'm not saying that what Barr did was illegal, tantamount to treason or what have you. Barr did his job, continues to do his job, but everything he does is buffered behind rather obvious attempts at PR for the presidency.


----------



## Gutwrench

Renzatic said:


> The initial reading was an attempt to soften the blow of the findings of the Mueller report, and the May 1st statement was the justification for such.
> 
> Keep in mind that I'm not saying that what Barr did was illegal, tantamount to treason or what have you. Barr did his job, continues to do his job, but everything he does is buffered behind rather obvious attempts at PR for the presidency.




Yes, to a large extent he’s been the president’s wing man. I entered the thread over Mark’s factually incorrect claim.  Otherwise I’m most tolerate and understanding of differing opinions.


----------



## Renzatic

Gutwrench said:


> Yes, to a large extent he’s been the president’s wing man. I entered the thread over Mark’s factually incorrect claim.  Otherwise I’m most tolerate and understanding of differing opinions.




Though Barr telling DOJ officials to ignore congressional subpoenas should be something that appalls everyone, regardless of their political leanings. That sets a precedence that will ultimately do no one any favors.


----------



## Gutwrench

SuperMatt said:


> Reading that summary is disturbing to me. A Trump political appointee determined these things:
> 
> ”After the Special Counsel submitted the confidential report on March 22, I determined that it was in the public interest for the Department to announce the investigation’s bottom-line conclusions—that is, the determination whether a provable crime has been committed or not.” - The infamous summary that intentionally gave people a false impression that the President had been exonerated.
> 
> Regarding obstruction of justice: “After carefully reviewing the facts and legal theories outlined in the report, and in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other Department lawyers, the Deputy Attorney General and I concluded that, under the principles of federal prosecution, the evidence developed by the Special Counsel would not be sufficient to charge the President with an obstruction-of-justice offense.”
> 
> We need a better independent counsel law. An investigation like this should be untouchable by the President. When his personally-appointed Attorney General can unilaterally make decisions like the quote above, the idea of investigating the president is, quite literally, a joke. The Kenneth Starr fiasco was heinous too in its own way; he had unlimited freedom to pursue anything, even stuff that had nothing to do with the initial case... so we got an impeachment based on conduct that was never under investigation in the first place. The pendulum swung way too far towards benefit of the executive branch this time though. Time to find something in the middle: a way to investigate an allegedly corrupt or criminal president, without letting a loyalist crush it, but also not letting them go so far astray of the initial investigation that we are looking at 20-year old parking tickets.




It was his job to assess the report and reach a conclusion. Absolutely no different than a local district attorney’s determination whether to file charges in any criminal investigation.


----------



## SuperMatt

Gutwrench said:


> It was his job to assess the report and reach a conclusion. Absolutely no different than a local district attorney’s determination whether to file charges in any criminal investigation.



There is one massive difference perhaps you aren’t aware of. 47 states have elected district attorneys. That means they answer to the people, and if a governor was investigated, they have no loyalty to that person and would have no reason to be biased.

Barr was appointed by Trump AFTER Trump felt prior the prior AG wasn’t loyal enough.

A completely independent body could be trusted; a Trump loyalist shouldn’t be the one deciding whether to prosecute his boss!


----------



## Gutwrench

Renzatic said:


> Though Barr telling DOJ officials to ignore congressional subpoenas should be something that appalls everyone, regardless of their political leanings. That sets a precedence that will ultimately do no one any favors.




 Like Holder, Barr was shielded by Trump’s order and ability to claim executive privilege.


----------



## Renzatic

Gutwrench said:


> It was his job to assess the report and reach a conclusion. Absolutely no different than a local district attorney’s determination whether to file charges in any criminal investigation.




Exactly. Barr is the Attorney General of the United States. The cases he chooses to pursue or ignore are left entirely to his discretion. That is his right. His position grants him that authority.

That said, we can still argue endlessly over the reasoning for his conclusions, or even whether you could consider his actions as examples of corruption of office or not. Though that latter bit would be hard to prove, since you could easily argue that Barr has merely been running the DOJ according to his opinions of its role and position in the government hierarchy, even if we don't necessarily agree with those opinions.


----------



## Gutwrench

SuperMatt said:


> There is one massive difference perhaps you aren’t aware of. 47 states have elected district attorneys. That means they answer to the people, and if a governor was investigated, they have no loyalty to that person and would have no reason to be biased.
> 
> Barr was appointed by Trump AFTER Trump felt prior the prior AG wasn’t loyal enough.
> 
> A completely independent body could be trusted; a Trump loyalist shouldn’t be the one deciding whether to prosecute his boss!




The executive branch prosecutes criminal offenses.


----------



## Renzatic

Gutwrench said:


> Like Holder, Barr was shielded by Trump’s order and ability to claim executive privilege.




This is true. And since no one has yet to officially determine whether this is a kosher use of executive privilege or not...


----------



## Gutwrench

Renzatic said:


> Exactly. Barr is the Attorney General of the United States. The cases he chooses to pursue or ignore are left entirely to his discretion. That is his right. His position grants him that authority.
> 
> That said, we can still argue endlessly over the reasoning for his conclusions, or even whether you could consider his actions as examples of corruption of office or not. Though that latter bit would be hard to prove, since you could easily argue that Barr has merely been running the DOJ according to his opinions of its role and position in the government hierarchy, even if we don't necessarily agree with those opinions.




Yep, I respect differing opinions. I weighed in over Mark‘s inaccurate claim.


----------



## Gutwrench

Renzatic said:


> This is true. And since no one has yet to officially determine whether this is a kosher use of executive privilege or not...




I think whenever there’s a conflict between branches it becomes a bit of gamesmanship. Congress forwent judicial review.


----------



## Renzatic

Gutwrench said:


> Yep, I respect differing opinions. I weighed in over Mark‘s inaccurate claim.




It's a sign of the times, man. Everyone is keyed up to 11 these days.


----------



## SuperMatt

Gutwrench said:


> The executive branch prosecutes criminal offenses.



This is a non-answer, and completely ignores everything I just pointed out. If I want one-line answers that ignore the points I just made, I can go to PRSI. Why not throw in a thought about whether we should have an independent counsel again like during the Clinton impeachment? Or if the pendulum has swung too far? I am not disputing that Barr was allowed to do what he did. I am saying that our current system makes it almost completely impossible to do anything about a criminal president because we’ve given political appointees of the President the job of investigating the president and deciding if he should be prosecuted.


----------



## Gutwrench

SuperMatt said:


> This is a non-answer, and completely ignores everything I just pointed out. If I want one-line answers that ignore the points I just made, I can go to PRSI. Why not throw in a thought about whether we should have an independent counsel again like during the Clinton impeachment? Or if the pendulum has swung too far? I am not disputing that Barr was allowed to do what he did. I am saying that our current system makes it almost completely impossible to do anything about a criminal president because we’ve given political appointees of the President the job of investigating the president and deciding if he should be prosecuted.




Be may guest at PRSI. You don’t get to change the Constitution or how the three co-equal branches work.


----------



## Renzatic

Gutwrench said:


> I think whenever there’s a conflict between branches it becomes a bit of gamesmanship. Congress forwent judicial review.




I could argue that it is ultimately unconstitutional, since congress was granted investigative powers as a check and balance against the more agile executive branch. But since there's nothing in the Constitution directly forbidding it, it's been used in such a way previously, and no one's bothered taking it before SCOTUS yet, it's treated as an "until we're told otherwise..." affair.


----------



## SuperMatt

Gutwrench said:


> Be may guest at PRSI. You don’t get to change the Constitution or how the three co-equal branches work.



So you have no opinion on whether we should bring back the independent counsel? Does the current system serve justice? Just stating basic facts is pointless; - I already know how the system works. I’m asking if it’s fair and if it should be changed in some way.


----------



## Gutwrench

SuperMatt said:


> So you have no opinion on whether we should bring back the independent counsel? Does the current system serve justice? Just stating basic facts is pointless; - I already know how the system works. I’m asking if it’s fair and if it should be changed in some way.




There’s little difference except how they are appointed. If you recall Nixon fired the special prosecutor. 

Mueller did not conclude any criminal offense occurred and did not recommend any charges.

Unfortunately if you understood how the the system works we wouldn’t be here right now. But I’ll defer to you that you understand nonetheless.


----------



## SuperMatt

Gutwrench said:


> There’s little difference except how they are appointed. If you recall Nixon fired the special prosecutor.
> 
> Mueller did not conclude any criminal offense occurred and did not recommend any charges.
> 
> Unfortunately if you understood how the the system works we wouldn’t be here right now. But I’ll defer to you that you understand nonetheless.



*If* I understood fhe system? So you’re calling me ignorant, dismissing my questions with stuff like ”well that’s how the system works” even though I asked if the system should be changed. The system did change after the Nixon debacle. Then after Clinton, it changed again. The question is: should it change once again this time?

You could just say “I like the system; don’t change it” or “I don’t care to answer your question.” Instead, you insult my intelligence by insisting I don’t know how the system works. Great discussion.


----------



## User.45

Gutwrench said:


> There’s little difference except how they are appointed. If you recall Nixon fired the special prosecutor.
> 
> Mueller did not conclude any criminal offense occurred and did not recommend any charges.
> 
> Unfortunately if you understood how the the system works we wouldn’t be here right now. But I’ll defer to you that you understand nonetheless.



I like you, but you get annoyingly passive-aggressive on topics like this.


----------



## Renzatic

Gutwrench said:


> Mueller did not conclude any criminal offense occurred and did not recommend any charges.




Mueller didn't make a call on this particular issue, pro or con, in the report. He left that decision up to the AG.


----------



## Gutwrench

PearsonX said:


> I like you, but you get annoyingly passive-aggressive on topics like this.



Consider it a perk bundled with no extra charge.


----------



## Gutwrench

SuperMatt said:


> *If* I understood fhe system? So you’re calling me ignorant...




You went there, not me. I’m direct enough to say exactly how I feel.


----------



## Gutwrench

Renzatic said:


> Mueller didn't make a call on this particular issue, pro or con, in the report. He left that decision up to the AG.




It was his job to establish if elements of criminal offenses were met. He did not. It is up to the AG to make the final decision if criminal proceedings are appropriate based on the investigation. Since Mueller couldn’t that’s where it ended.


----------



## User.45

Gutwrench said:


> Consider it a perk bundled with no extra charge.



Prove it!


----------



## Gutwrench

PearsonX said:


> Prove it!




I didn’t invoice you. Let me check my accounts receivable to be sure.


----------



## Renzatic

Man, I took a monster piss this morning. I got up, started to do my normal morning thing, and holy crap, I just keep peeing. It kept going and going and going. I was sitting there wondering what was going on, cuz I didn't remember drinking all that much water before bed last night. After half an hour, I started crying. I'm not ashamed to admit it, cuz it was a scary situation. I thought I was going to pee myself to death. Straight up dehydration, what with all the pee and the tears and everything. I actually had to flush three times midstream to keep from overfilling the toilet.

But anyway, it stopped, and everything turned out okay. 

Just thought you'd all want to know.


----------



## Gutwrench

Renzatic said:


> Man, I took a monster piss this morning. I got up, started to do my normal morning thing, and holy crap, I just keep peeing. It kept going and going and going. *I was sitting there *wondering what was going on, cuz I didn't remember drinking all that much water before bed last night. After half an hour, I started crying. I'm not ashamed to admit it, cuz it was a scary situation. I thought I was going to pee myself to death. Straight up dehydration, what with all the pee and the tears and everything. I actually had to flush three times midstream to keep from overfilling the toilet.
> 
> But anyway, it stopped, and everything turned out okay.
> 
> Just thought you'd all want to know.




Confirming you sit to pee?


----------



## Renzatic

Gutwrench said:


> Confirming you sit to pee?




By god, I STAND to pee!

...unless it's one of those situations where I think I have to take a dump, but it's just gas. I'll sit then, cuz, you know, I'm already there.


----------



## SuperMatt

Barr is trash... looks like garbage day in Washington, DC is Dec 23.


----------



## Eric

I'm a little torn on the ideology behind this one because I think there is something to be said for China, I understand that the virus originated there but once they got a handle on it they were able to manage it much more easily because they have say over their population. 

There are no dumb ass people running around waving Trump flags and refusing to wear masks, that shit would never fly there. Yes, some freedoms are sacrificed but in an event like the COVID it pays off.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

ericgtr12 said:


> I'm a little torn on the ideology behind this one because I think there is something to be said for China, I understand that the virus originated there but once they got a handle on it they were able to manage it much more easily because they have say over their population.
> 
> There are no dumb ass people running around waving Trump flags and refusing to wear masks, that shit would never fly there. Yes, some freedoms are sacrificed but in an event like the COVID it pays off.




But there were also a lot better results in democratic country’s who are lucky enough to not have a leader who blew it off as a hoax for months while making fun of people wearing masks. Was listening to a podcast this morning talking about how the US was rock bottom in response when comparing to other developed country’s body count adjusted for population differences. For example based on South Korea and adjusting for the population difference we would only have about 3,000 dead total. Instead we added to 0’s to that number. There’s a good chance we’ll hit a half million in the next couple months. #1?


----------



## Mark

ericgtr12 said:


> I'm a little torn on the ideology behind this one because I think there is something to be said for China, I understand that the virus originated there but once they got a handle on it they were able to manage it much more easily because they have say over their population.
> 
> There are no dumb ass people running around waving Trump flags and refusing to wear masks, that shit would never fly there. Yes, some freedoms are sacrificed but in an event like the COVID it pays off.




@ericgtr12
thank you for bringing the topic around to the very point of the original post. i appreciate that.

(more) Authoritarian vs. (more) Constitutional control.

in my cited China case, there is no greater threat ( _as perceived by the by Chinese Government itself)_ than the threat it feels when Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Macao are not considered to be integral to and inseparable from China.
make no mistake, China will not tolerate any social democratic leanings of Legco (the Hong Kong locally elected council).
it will root out and destroy persons and families of its perceived enemies,* in order to maintain control*.
it does not matter what the law or Basic Law is. its about making sure that that it is able, in the end, to maintain control - no matter what.

yes. restrictions put in place in China to stop the spread of COVID-19 were draconian. but China used every tactic and tool it could to stop the spread. it worked. in the end, it saved lives. yes, people had to wear the equivalent of ankle bracelets etc etc.
but it worked.

the above is an example how a (more) Authoritarian government maintains control, and in the end benefits its people, in spite of the populous needing to give up any temporary movements.

the use of China in this (more) Authoritarian example  however is sometimes apt to be clouded since there is so much misunderstanding about China and the way it controls its people on a day to day level.
so you can use Singapore as actually the same model as well.
Lee Kuan Yu was a _benevolent_ dictator.
but he was a dictator in every way.
he and his People's Party took Singapore from being a disease infested backwater, to a modern Nation City State, in just a few decades. it benefited its people. but it arrested people who agitated against it. it used British laws that it left in place to control sedition  and right to arrest, for months, persons without trial.
but it benefited its people.

now, America.
is many, but not all States, there are laws on the books that allow the State authorities to put in place measures to control the spread of disease.
Attorney General Barr in his infamous speech before the Federalist Society said:


> A related...aspect of Executive power is the power to address exigent circumstances that demand quick action to protect the well-being of the nation but on which the law is either silent or inadequate -- such as dealing with natural disasters or plagues.



Now Barr delivered this speech on November 15, 2019 PC*
He was prophetic.
A President should have the authority to do what is needed to control the spread of a plague - Trump didn't take action at all, and even said that wearing masks was ineffective and the economy could not be sacrificed - even his muchly touted Warp Speed was just a marketing repackaging of the pharmaceutical industry's own resources it poured into research.
And so we have many more persons dead and will die needlessly before the vaccine is administered enough to cause herd immunity (a term Dr. Fauci used yesterday to describe what will be possible if most people get vaccinated) .

So, President Biden, in January, can and should use Barr's very language delivered before the Federalist Society _-  to protect the well-being of the nation but on which the law is either silent or inadequate -- such as dealing with natural disasters or plagues -_ and institute a general request for all States to comply with CDC guidelines -and backed by guidelines. This is why Pelosi is right to not accept McConnell's trying to slip into the Covid Relief funding any provision to exclude companies from being culpable for not complying with CDC guidelines.  Support the CDC guidelines. Dont make them "recommenndations" that have no tooth as the Trump administration did. Meat packing industry being a good example.

Regarding Trump's continued attempt to carry out a de facto coup d'etat, and his supporters using intimidation against Electoral Electors,  I repeat, I  think that America's division of government control (separation of powers) was the mechanism that allowed the rule of law (the Constitution) to overcome the Statist / Authoritarian elements that have been running amok for 4 years, and the attempt to carry out this de facto coup d'etat in all of its Lame Duck flaccidity.
More authoritarian leaning nations do not have such strong and vigorous and co-equal branches.
It was the Judicial Branch of government (very different from the Justice Department) that figured in to come to America's rescue during this past half-year to combat corruption from the Executive branch and stagnation from the Legislative Branch.

Bringing it home, (more) Authoritarian vs. (more) Constitutional control should continue to discussed - its the central issue to survival of America in a world full of globalised threats that increasingly needs _management_ _and managerial competence_ to combat .
But we must not follow the model of Singapore. America's liberal democracy has an effective tripartite equal power system to ensure rule of law, with real-time interpretation of what is legal and what is not illegal, while affording the Executive Branch the power to take effective actions.

*Pre-Covid


----------



## Gutwrench

Mark said:


> It was the Judicial Branch of government (very different from the Justice Department) that figured in to come to America's rescue during this past half-year to combat corruption from the Executive branch and stagnation from the Legislative branch.




For example?


----------



## User.45

Gutwrench said:


> For example?



Now you need an example!


----------



## Gutwrench

PearsonX said:


> Now you need an example!




for the quoted piece, yep.


----------



## SuperMatt

Gutwrench said:


> for the quoted piece, yep.



Wait, you’re not aware of any major court cases within the past half-year?


----------



## User.45

Gutwrench said:


> for the quoted piece, yep.



I'm just here for the popcorn, but you should promise to extend a >2-line response if @Mark or anybody else provides that example. Before you tried to get away with, "agree to disagree".


----------



## Gutwrench

SuperMatt said:


> Wait, you’re not aware of any major court cases within the past half-year?




I’m asking for examples where the “Judicial Branch ... figured in to come to America’s rescue to combat corruption from the Executive branch and stagnation from the Legislative branch.“



> It was the Judicial Branch of government (very different from the Justice Department) that figured in to come to America's rescue during this past half-year to combat corruption from the Executive branch and stagnation from the Legislative branch.


----------



## Gutwrench

PearsonX said:


> I'm just here for the popcorn...




Enjoy your popcorn up there in the cheap seats.


----------



## User.45

Gutwrench said:


> Enjoy your popcorn up there in the cheap seats.



Gracias! Now gimme my show!


----------



## Gutwrench

PearsonX said:


> Gracias! Now gimme my show!


----------



## Eraserhead

Gutwrench said:


> I’m asking for examples where the “Judicial Branch ... figured in to come to America’s rescue to combat corruption from the Executive branch and stagnation from the Legislative branch.“





			Supreme Court rejects bid by Trump allies to overturn Pennsylvania election result


----------

