Lawrence Lessig on how Congress should behave when the president breaks the law

I’ve given up on those people. Best I can hope for is when they die, their organs are worth harvesting. Outside of that, eh.


So the measured approach probably won’t work. Worth a try though.

These start up executive orders were expected. He is actually keeping a number of his key promises this way. Though perhaps not implementing them well.

He has so far done less executive orders than Obama at this stage.

I have more anxiety over future executive decisions than the current ones.

What happens if he loses 2020?
Given his consistent behaviour I can only imagine his outgoing orders will be to screw up the country as much as possible. He won’t care about making America anything but hell. THAT is terrifying


You’re still premising that thought with the expectation that he’ll follow any rules/laws/norms/etc. Let’s hope we’re still having free and open elections at that point.


That was a time when everyone was afraid the USSR presentedca a legitimate alternative system of doing things. The scandels of Watergate and the malaise that followed hadn’t happened yet. Those in government either lived or led us through the depression and then ww2.

I am too young to know if these things are true or not. I believe this is at least close to the truth.

1 Like

It’s a whole lot easier when:

Economic growth is running 5-7 percent every year.
Social Security has 6-7 workers paying in for every retiree drawing out
Energy is (almost) dirt cheap


Why? That’s a real question, btw, I really am having trouble seeing the link between those factors causing better governance. I could just as easily expect those conditions to lead to bad behavior on the grounds that it is easier to afford/get away with/hide amidst the good news.

Also, even if economics are a determining factor, why should it be dependent on the growth rate rather than the level of output (which of course is much higher today and still rising if more slowly)? Per capita GDP is still going up not down (so anything we could afford then we should be able to afford now, though the tax rate distribution should be different), and inflation-adjusted gasoline and electricity prices are actually just about unchanged from then to now (actually comparable to or lower now than in the 50s-70s)? Social security is the same - if you remove the regressive cap beyond which you pay no FICA taxes (to account for the shifting income distribution in this country), there is no projected shortfall in the lifetime of anyone alive today.

Basically, if we’re collectively richer not poorer than we used to be, why is it that we’re being told we can no longer afford what we used to afford? Especially when interest rates and inflation have both been so low so long (which would have made even vast unfunded spending since 2008 extremely affordable even on initiatives with modest returns). Maybe there is a good reason, but it certainly smells funny.


This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.