Nine times out of ten, the person saying this will turn around and complain about all the "political hacks" running things, referring to political appointees with no experience or background in the area of government they are tasked to run.
The term "unelected bureaucrats" applies to people like...I dunno, the director of the NIH and field office managers. Heck, even a police captain is an "unelected bureaucrat". Sheesh.
The director of the NIH is a prime example of a position the people should have direct control over. As is the police captain. Are you claiming otherwise? Have we really forgotten about 2020 so soon?
That’s part of the ploy. Give people a million menial jobs to elect so they feel exhausted by the process instead of demanding to have control over the real power.
See also the California senators, which have at this point been unilaterally appointed by Gavin rather than elected by the people. If that wasn’t bad enough, he appointed this latest one based on a personal promise made to put a Black woman in the seat, in exchange for some union to aid in his personal election campaign.
If anyone cared about civics, separation of power, or indeed democracy itself, there’d be rioting in the streets.
You’re saying part of the problem is people overwhelmed by menial job elections yet say people should elect police captains. Should they then also elect deputy police chiefs, police chiefs? Also, anyone that knows their civics would know that what Newsome did is covered in the US Constitution.
I was imprecisely using "captain" in the "person in change" sense, Chief/Commissioner of police would be the more accurate term, and yes they should absolutely be elected.
As for your alleged lesson in civics, the actual matter is covered by the 17th amendment to the constitution, which states:
> When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
- U.S. Cons. amend. XVII § 2, emphasis mine
So then the question is how has the CA legislature directed the executive thereof to make temporary appointments? The answer to that lies in the California Code:
> If a vacancy occurs in the representation of this state in the Senate of the United States, the Governor may appoint and commission an elector of this state who possesses the qualifications for the office to temporarily fill the vacancy until a person is elected at a statewide general election...
- Cal. Elec. Code § 10720, emphasis mine
So we're left with a very simple question: Was Laphonza Butler an elector of the state of CA at the time she was appointed to fill the vacancy by Gavin? If not, Gavin was operating outside his authority as granted by the CA Legislature, and accordingly in volition of the 17th amendment to the US Constitution.
And the answer to that is very simple, a resounding "No":
> Butler is a longtime California resident but now lives in Maryland. She owns a home in California also. The governor’s office said she would re-register to vote in California soon.
At least elected bureaucrats are theoretically accountable to the electorate. The gripe comes from things like the unelected bureaucrats at the US Department of Justice deciding that as part of implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act, there are only two limited and inadequate questions you can ask of someone with an apparently bogus service dog or else. That rule didn't come from the people who wrote the law.
In practice that shouldn’t matter, as the law states that any service animal can be turned away so long as the business provides accommodation to the human (which is the point of the limited questions).
The fact this rarely happens is more due to people not actually knowing the law and typically wanting to avoid potential conflict.
"people not knowing the law" can be a symptom of bureaucracy though. How many pages of law do you think exist to open a bagel shop or add a room to your house in SFO?
It's a remark about the broader topic of bureaucracy and how you can't blame people for not knowing the nooks and crevasses of modern liberal legislature. You know, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. That's been a common charge against our vast unelected bureaucracy, most of whom hold qualified immunity. We're trillions of dollars in debt, maybe it's time to peel some of it back a little.
Are they though? How about the FDA getting most of its funding by the companies they are supposed to regulate? It's comforting to just trust that bureaucracies are doing what's good for the country, but also naive.
>> The only teeth congress has with these bureaucracies is the power of the purse.
>Not true. Congress can make laws defining what those agencies are and are not allowed to do.
>And if the agencies go outside the bounds of those laws like some currently do?
>Then those who are victimized take it to court.
Right, the court isn't congress. My point was the only teeth congress has in regards to the bureaucracies is the power of the purse.
>successfully done all the time.
It depends on how you define successfully. I mean they employ people, is that good enough? Do you think they would be more or less effective with a 20% haircut? I don't really know, but members congress probably don't either. Plus, it's bad politics to cut jobs come election time, right? Seems like a perverse incentive for the people charged overseeing the bureaucracies.
Congress created these agencies, they can write laws that fundamentally change how they work, what they do, and what they focus on. They can even just disband these agencies. Congress has all of the power it needs. If they don't use it, maybe what you think should happen doesn't align with the majority of Congress.
You're assuming that the shadow government can't or won't institute regime change when it's threatened. The US Government killed a president, why wouldn't it blackmail congress as well?
you're right.... The CIA and, by extension, the US government as a whole (or any subgroup thereof) have never altered the outcome of elections anywhere for regime change, and have never instigated color revolutions for regime change.
If your belief is correct in that the Congress and President are coerced into doing what the shadow government wants, then they would have zero need for a revolution or regime change in the United States.
The CIA and FBI definitely didn't like Trump. You see this same thing with police departments at the local level. They don't like what a mayor says (like de Blasio), they get the blue flu and cause crime to increase and the mayor takes the heat for the increase in crime.
