Row 67728

Row ID: 67728 | Dataset Entry | Axioma AXP Content Repository

Content Data

This page contains data entry 67728 from the Axioma AXP content repository. The structured data below represents the complete record for this entry.

It’s a fair question, but ultimately yes. I’ll give you my take, and you should evaluate it as you see fit.

The framers were responding to the problem of monarchy, which is too much power in too few hands. The constitution creates our three superior institutions (congress is a constitutional office, the FDA or Department of Education are statutory).

After creating the three institutions, the constitution says how they operate. Tomes are written on this. But the “how” can be boiled down to one thing. The constitution gives you the status quo, unless people agree. The constitution requires agreement to be obtained from different slices of society, depending on what change is being made.

For a statute, you need agreement in a majority of house districts, you need agreement in a majority of states via the senate, you need agreement from the nation as a whole via the president, and you need agreement from the Supreme Court in the event of a constitutional challenge.

All of these slices cut across both geography and time. Looking at the time angle, again for a statute, you need two-year agreement in the house, staggered six-year agreement in the senate, four-year agreement in the president, and long-ass agreement in the Supreme Court.

If you can’t get such agreement, the laws don’t change. That is a very anti-king policy to go with. Status quo is the constitutional default. One never hears, “the president can bypass congress and just promulgate statutes, so long as congress is derelict in its duty to spend for the general welfare.” (Which is a real “duty” by the same logic under art. 1 sec. 7). No. The framers are fine with status quo bias.

So yes, if the president and the senate don’t agree on who should be on the Supreme Court, the constitution gives the status quo, which is an open seat, until the relevant level of agreement is obtained via elections.

FieldValue
text It’s a fair question, but ultimately yes. I’ll give you my take, and you should evaluate it as you see fit. The framers were responding to the problem of monarchy, which is too much power in too few hands. The constitution creates our three superior institutions (congress is a constitutional office, the FDA or Department of Education are statutory). After creating the three institutions, the constitution says how they operate. Tomes are written on this. But the “how” can be boiled down to …
label r/politics
dataType comment
communityName r/politics
datetime 2024-05-23
username_encoded Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak1kUER4R2xjR2FjSmx4ZnV3M08ydkgtdTN3LVEtNXZPZU1uZG1hM28zZG9Cbzh5MG1EMUJxSzRQcGtTWmtobkpBckhIQW1aZHZoQk14WlU5WWhIVzBwNVdBMlFmblZuSjhyZnR5NjdXNW1PRkU9
url_encoded Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak90dXdIUHVteVRLWkY4RDJiRjdQMDh1TXNQd0RuRXh0aEY0ZjhBb0xnZTN5dmNPUksyNTB4NHg3aTM3QURuSUtEeG5DZlA2a0ZIaHlwUFEtSE9xdE5ZVHU0cFJtVm1Rc3YxNVR6QndBRk5NcWVBelNMM3NtLU0wNjlWcG0xSGlMSTExdm94aHoybkxoUUtoTEpwaGVXZWxkZ3dhckZkMFlmUHllUXM0dkdGM3FzNFdDeFBJOEV2dFRDWUxGbEREVVFlQXllNkdyVVZEWFpCNGFDemMtYVlpZz09

Raw Record

{
  "text": "It’s a fair question, but ultimately yes.  I’ll give you my take, and you should evaluate it as you see fit.\n\nThe framers were responding to the problem of monarchy, which is too much power in too few hands.  The constitution creates our three superior institutions (congress is a constitutional office, the FDA or Department of Education are statutory).\n\nAfter creating the three institutions, the constitution says how they operate.  Tomes are written on this.  But the “how” can be boiled down to one thing.  The constitution gives you the status quo, unless people agree.  The constitution requires agreement to be obtained from different slices of society, depending on what change is being made.\n\nFor a statute, you need agreement in a majority of house districts, you need agreement in a majority of states via the senate, you need agreement from the nation as a whole via the president, and you need agreement from the Supreme Court in the event of a constitutional challenge.\n\nAll of these slices cut across both geography and time.  Looking at the time angle, again for a statute, you need two-year agreement in the house, staggered six-year agreement in the senate, four-year agreement in the president, and long-ass agreement in the Supreme Court. \n\nIf you can’t get such agreement, the laws don’t change.  That is a very anti-king policy to go with.  Status quo is the constitutional default.  One never hears, “the president can bypass congress and just promulgate statutes, so long as congress is derelict in its duty to spend for the general welfare.” (Which is a real “duty” by the same logic under art. 1 sec. 7). No.  The framers are fine with status quo bias.\n\nSo yes, if the president and the senate don’t agree on who should be on the Supreme Court, the constitution gives the status quo, which is an open seat, until the relevant level of agreement is obtained via elections.",
  "label": "r/politics",
  "dataType": "comment",
  "communityName": "r/politics",
  "datetime": "2024-05-23",
  "username_encoded": "Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak1kUER4R2xjR2FjSmx4ZnV3M08ydkgtdTN3LVEtNXZPZU1uZG1hM28zZG9Cbzh5MG1EMUJxSzRQcGtTWmtobkpBckhIQW1aZHZoQk14WlU5WWhIVzBwNVdBMlFmblZuSjhyZnR5NjdXNW1PRkU9",
  "url_encoded": "Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak90dXdIUHVteVRLWkY4RDJiRjdQMDh1TXNQd0RuRXh0aEY0ZjhBb0xnZTN5dmNPUksyNTB4NHg3aTM3QURuSUtEeG5DZlA2a0ZIaHlwUFEtSE9xdE5ZVHU0cFJtVm1Rc3YxNVR6QndBRk5NcWVBelNMM3NtLU0wNjlWcG0xSGlMSTExdm94aHoybkxoUUtoTEpwaGVXZWxkZ3dhckZkMFlmUHllUXM0dkdGM3FzNFdDeFBJOEV2dFRDWUxGbEREVVFlQXllNkdyVVZEWFpCNGFDemMtYVlpZz09"
}
Explore Dataset Explore Row

Entry Information