Autogolpe (coup against the Constitution)

[placeholder]

The purported objective of DOGE was to alleviate the financial burden on taxpayers by targeting "waste, fraud, and abuse." I contended that this initiative was destined for failure, as Musk and his associates seemed entirely unaware of the mechanisms behind federal government expenditures.

 

While my previous assertions were accurate, I must acknowledge a misjudgment on my part. It should have been evident to me at that time, and is now abundantly clear, that the statements made by Musk and Trump regarding their actions are fundamentally misleading, including their professed motivations. The ignorance and disorder are indeed tangible, yet it is crucial to recognize the fundamental intent behind their actions. What is currently unfolding in America can be characterized as an attempted autogolpe.

 

Readers from Latin America are likely familiar with this term. An autogolpe, or "self-coup," occurs when a legitimately elected leader exploits their authority to consolidate power, thereby dismantling legal and constitutional limitations. Are Musk and Trump endeavoring to execute an autogolpe in this context? Undoubtedly. Furthermore, they appear to have the unwavering support of every Republican member in both the House and the Senate.

 

 

 

 

 

Source Paul Krugman@substack

 

 

MOD EDIT:

27. You will not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles). Only post a link, the headline and three sentences from the article. Content in the public domain is limited to the same restrictions.

[Smokin Joe]

TLDR.  Learn how to post a link.

 

[placeholder]

17 minutes ago, Smokin Joe said:

TLDR.  Learn how to post a link.

 

If you're referring to the image link, of course it doesn't work as a link. Aseannow doesn't seem to allow for that anymore. Anyway I copied the image from the screen and pasted it in the article.

And there isn't  supposed to be a link to the article, if that's what you're referring to. It's a rewrite. Look at what Social Media does in the World News Forum

[Smokin Joe]

When you say it's a rewrite do you mean you took the information from the source you listed and then changed all the facts and posted it as your own?

[Social Media]

Topic has been edited according to the forum rules. A re write cannot be accepted.

 

27. You will not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles). Only post a link, the headline and three sentences from the article. Content in the public domain is limited to the same restrictions.

[Gaccha]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

dismantling legal and constitutional limitations

 

I agree largely with the author but I have sympathy for the behaviour nevertheless. 

 

The progressive tendencies have built up an enormous extra constitutional framework that constantly pushes change. We can call this "the deep state".

 

These vast bureaucracies are obviously not mentioned in the constitution and would never have been imagined by the young founding fathers. So what was added can just as legitimately be taken away. 

 

We can see a similar situation in the UK with Tony Blair's massive expansion of Quangos, removing power from politicians and giving it to a Byzantium complex of half- understood organisations that often work against the government in power. 

 

Ultimately power derives from the mandate of the people. And if they seek extreme change to the government then that must be largely legitimate and by definition democratic.

[save the frogs]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

If you're referring to the image link, of course it doesn't work as a link. Aseannow doesn't seem to allow for that anymore. Anyway I copied the image from the screen and pasted it in the article.

Mods, how come we can't copy and paste images anymore? 

 

 

[placeholder]

9 minutes ago, Gaccha said:

 

I agree largely with the author but I have sympathy for the behaviour nevertheless. 

 

The progressive tendencies have built up an enormous extra constitutional framework that constantly pushes change. We can call this "the deep state".

 

These vast bureaucracies are obviously not mentioned in the constitution and would never have been imagined by the young founding fathers. So what was added can just as legitimately be taken away. 

 

We can see a similar situation in the UK with Tony Blair's massive expansion of Quangos, removing power from politicians and giving it to a Byzantium complex of half- understood organisations that often work against the government in power. 

 

Ultimately power derives from the mandate of the people. And if they seek extreme change to the government then that must be largely legitimate and by definition democratic.

Maybe vast bureaucracies are not mentioned in them but the permission to create them certainly is. And just as these bureaucracies were created in accordance with the Constitution, so they can also be dismantled according to the Constitution.  If the United States were a pure democracy, then your final comment could be legitimate. The problem is, the US is not a pure democracy. In fact, it has a Constitution which limits that democracy  So, elected government are not free to carry out a political program as they please in violation of the Constitution just because they were democratically elected.

[Yagoda]

13 hours ago, placeholder said:

Maybe vast bureaucracies are not mentioned in them but the permission to create them certainly is. And just as these bureaucracies were created in accordance with the Constitution, so they can also be dismantled according to the Constitution.  If the United States were a pure democracy, then your final comment could be legitimate. The problem is, the US is not a pure democracy. In fact, it has a Constitution which limits that democracy  So, elected government are not free to carry out a political program as they please in violation of the Constitution just because they were democratically elected.

Took you all that verbiage to point out that the USA is a republic governed by a constitution?? Thats something that American kids learn in grade school.

 

So tell us, constitutional expert, what is the limit of Congresses power concerning the executive and what is the constitutional limit on Trumps power over the executive? You are familiar with Collins v Yellen, right? How about Federalist 70? Obviously you must be, based on your assertions in the OP and your evident agreement with Mr. Krugman, a notorious leftist Democratic shill?

 

BTW, Mr. Krugman asserts meretricious behavior on the part of Trump. Do you have facts to support that assertion?

[placeholder]

On 2/8/2025 at 12:11 PM, Yagoda said:

Took you all that verbiage to point out that the USA is a republic governed by a constitution?? Thats something that American kids learn in grade school.

 

So tell us, constitutional expert, what is the limit of Congresses power concerning the executive and what is the constitutional limit on Trumps power over the executive? You are familiar with Collins v Yellen, right? How about Federalist 70? Obviously you must be, based on your assertions in the OP and your evident agreement with Mr. Krugman, a notorious leftist Democratic shill?

 

BTW, Mr. Krugman asserts meretricious behavior on the part of Trump. Do you have facts to support that assertion?

Maybe that's something that American kids learn in grade school. But clearly that person whose post I was replying to clearly didn't. Not everyone has had the benefit of an American education. So I explained it to him in a courteous, dispassionate way.

Collins vs Yellin concerns whether or not Congress has the power to appoint an executive to an agency that is part of the Executive branch. What does it have to do with the power of the head of the executive branch to unilaterally dismantle govt departments created by Congress?  And what does it have to do with the executive branch refusing to faithfully execute the laws?

And what those grade school children learned, and you apparently did not, is that the Federalist Papers preceded the Constitution. In the Federalist papers, various persons explored ideas about what the nature of government , it's structure, and its limitations should be. Many of those ideas did wind up being incorporated into the Constitution.So while Hamilton was voicing his opinion, it is not a dissertation or an explanation of what is found in the Constitution. Just his opinion of what it should embody. Unless you believe that Hamilton was a time traveler.

As for your comment "Mr. Krugman asserts meretricious behavior on the part of Trump"...

Well, for one thing, we already see repeated lies from Musk's people about what they are finding. Also, why violate the Constitution in order to look for Govt waste and fraud? As Krugman pointed out, we've seen this kind of behavior elsewhere and what it leads to.

 

[Yagoda]

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

And what those grade school children learned, and you apparently did not, is that the Federalist Papers preceded the Constitution. In the Federalist papers, various persons explored ideas about what the nature of government , it's structure, and its limitations should be. Many of those ideas did wind up being incorporated into the Constitution.So while Hamilton was voicing his opinion, it is not a dissertation or an explanation of what is found in the Constitution

Except for the fact that the Supreme Court (290 citations), appellate attorneys and constitutional scholars rely on the Federalist Papers, so you cant even get a grade school explanation right. 

 

Give up. You know naught of what you speak.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Yagoda said:

Except for the fact that the Supreme Court (290 citations), appellate attorneys and constitutional scholars rely on the Federalist Papers, so you cant even get a grade school explanation right. 

 

Give up. You know naught of what you speak.

They do  resort to using the Federalist papers for gaining insight. Particularly conservative justices.  But no one author is dispositive.  And that includes Alexander Hamiltonl. But even if the Court did rely utterlyon Hamilton, he was a proponent for a strong executive. Not for a lawless one. I don't know why you think Hamilton opinions in 70 would justify Trump's actions.

[TedG]

On 2/7/2025 at 8:36 AM, placeholder said:

The purported objective of DOGE was to alleviate the financial burden on taxpayers by targeting "waste, fraud, and abuse." I contended that this initiative was destined for failure, as Musk and his associates seemed entirely unaware of the mechanisms behind federal government expenditures.

 

While my previous assertions were accurate, I must acknowledge a misjudgment on my part. It should have been evident to me at that time, and is now abundantly clear, that the statements made by Musk and Trump regarding their actions are fundamentally misleading, including their professed motivations. The ignorance and disorder are indeed tangible, yet it is crucial to recognize the fundamental intent behind their actions. What is currently unfolding in America can be characterized as an attempted autogolpe.

 

Readers from Latin America are likely familiar with this term. An autogolpe, or "self-coup," occurs when a legitimately elected leader exploits their authority to consolidate power, thereby dismantling legal and constitutional limitations. Are Musk and Trump endeavoring to execute an autogolpe in this context? Undoubtedly. Furthermore, they appear to have the unwavering support of every Republican member in both the House and the Senate.

 

 

 

 

 

Source Paul Krugman@substack

 

 

MOD EDIT:

27. You will not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles). Only post a link, the headline and three sentences from the article. Content in the public domain is limited to the same restrictions.

This is weak sauace.  

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, TedG said:

This is weak sauace.  

Thank you for your detailed rebuttal and analysis. 

[TedG]

On 2/7/2025 at 10:20 AM, placeholder said:

Maybe vast bureaucracies are not mentioned in them but the permission to create them certainly is. And just as these bureaucracies were created in accordance with the Constitution, so they can also be dismantled according to the Constitution.  If the United States were a pure democracy, then your final comment could be legitimate. The problem is, the US is not a pure democracy. In fact, it has a Constitution which limits that democracy  So, elected government are not free to carry out a political program as they please in violation of the Constitution just because they were democratically elected.

 

The court just struck down the Chevron doctrine.  Which is a start. 

[TedG]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Thank you for your detailed rebuttal and analysis. 

There is nothing in what you posted worthy of rebuttle.  What’s up with the <deleted>ty graph?

[placeholder]

Just now, TedG said:

 

The court just struck down the Chevron doctrine.  Which is a start. 

Actually, by striking down the Chevron doctrine, the court is limiting the power of the executive branch. Of course they had to invent a whole new doctrine to justify that.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, TedG said:

There is nothing in what you posted worthy of rebuttle.  What’s up with the <deleted>ty graph?

Well, now that you put it that way, you've definitely got nothing.

[TedG]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Well, now that you put it that way, you've definitely got nothing.

Just as I said in my last post.   How does the graph fit into your post? 

[placeholder]

Just now, TedG said:

Just as I said in my last post.   How does the graph fit into your post? 

Do you think Trump and Musk are claiming that

a) That the number of Federal employees is too low

b)That the number of Federal employees  is just right

c) That the number of Federal employees is too high

[TedG]

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Actually, by striking down the Chevron doctrine, the court is limiting the power of the executive branch. Of course they had to invent a whole new doctrine to justify that.

 

Which is good.  Now the judical branch decides what a law means.  Not the administrative state. 

[TedG]

Just now, placeholder said:

Do you think Trump and Musk are claiming that

a) That the number of Federal employees is too low

b)That the number of Federal employees  is just right

c) That the number of Federal employees is too high

 

I’d go with C. 

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, TedG said:

 

I’d go with C. 

So, do yo see any connection to that belief with the graph?

[TedG]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

So, do yo see any connection to that belief with the graph?

yes….too much spending. 

[placeholder]

9 minutes ago, TedG said:

 

Which is good.  Now the judical branch decides what a law means.  Not the administrative state. 

Well, what you disregard is that the Chevron Doctrine actually reflected the decision of an earlier Supreme Court. In fact, the decision overturning it was extremely contentiious. Polluters are overjoyed about it, though.

[TedG]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Well, what you disregard is that the Chevron Doctrine actually reflected the decision of an earlier Supreme Court. In fact, the decision overturning it was extremely contentiious. Polluters are overjoyed about it, though.

Over turning it was the prroper decision.  The interperation were changing with every administration.  It’s best for the justical branch to handle the interperation of the law. 

[TedG]

13 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Well, what you disregard is that the Chevron Doctrine actually reflected the decision of an earlier Supreme Court. In fact, the decision overturning it was extremely contentiious. Polluters are overjoyed about it, though.

 

Do you think an agency should have the power to interpret the meaning of the laws that have to enforce?

[Yagoda]

44 minutes ago, placeholder said:

They do  resort to using the Federalist papers for gaining insight. Particularly conservative justices.  But no one author is dispositive.  And that includes Alexander Hamiltonl. But even if the Court did rely utterlyon Hamilton, he was a proponent for a strong executive. Not for a lawless one. I don't know why you think Hamilton opinions in 70 would justify Trump's actions.

What "lawless" actions are being taken by Trump?

 

You cant even admit you are clueless can you. Want to see a "liberal" justice quoting the Federalist?

[connda]

You are digging where there ain't no gold.  In two years you guys will have another shot at gaining seats in Congress and in another four years, the presidency.  Is this going to be like 2016 though 2021 - another four years of butt-hurt Lefties crying every single day.  Lord - grow up.  This is exactly why more and more people are turning off to far-Left Democrats, and for that matter, Democrats in general.  It's not so much your ideology as it is the fact that collectively you're irritating.  Who wants to be around whiners for years on end?  Accept it, roll with the tide, you'll have a chance again.

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, connda said:

Who wants to be around whiners for years on end? 

Doesn't bode well for trump.