It was a crisis the moment that the Journal system was allowed to be built without any oversight from academia or the government itself.

A whole class of intelligent professionals performing a public good on public funds were tricked into doing most of the work for profitable companies who then charged these same people to read their peers’ work. They were tricked by appealing to their ego and longing for prestige.

And so now we have incessant publication/citation metrics and a tsunami of untrustworthy papers while shitty corporations rob the public funds of money that could much better spent.

Once that system was built, it was a crisis. Not just because it exists (and naturally leads to the current situation and worse). But because it was allowed to come into existence, which speaks to an intrinsic inability to self-govern on the part of the academic community.

I think that immunity for explicitly delineated powers makes sense purely from a logical point of view: the constitution says the president can do a thing, therefore a law saying they can’t do that thing is either unconstitutional, or doesn’t apply to the president.

Yea, it’s an interesting one. AFAIU, the delineated powers are basically command of the military and the power to pardon. I really don’t see how a Crime can generally be applicable to either of those. It’s not like “commanding the army” can just become a crime.

But regulating what the army can legally do … seems like a very natural thing. I don’t know if individuals of the military in the US can be responsible under ordinary law for anything. If so, then I don’t see why that would extend to the president should they order something that’s obviously a crime. If not, then that’s that. And again, there are probably natural exceptions to carve out regarding the very nature of military action that would lead to preposterous inconsistencies if they could possible be made generally criminal … where again, it seems to me that you don’t need immunity … it’s just the nature of the power that is amenable to falling within the meaning of legislative regulation.

Beyond all of that though … there’s the opening line of Article II:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America

WTF is “the executive power”?! I’m sure there have been attempts in the US to give it some shape … but I’d also wager it’s been left somewhat nebulous too, involving elements quite distinct from whatever powers Congress/Law can confer. Does that count as an enumerated power?

Otherwise … yea I’m with you. The “official acts” thing seems more than wonky to me … seems downright expansive. Excluding military action and whatever “fuzzy” powers may be considered intrinsic … I’d imagine most of the executive’s powers come from legislative laws. So the body conferring power can’t constrain it to “not doing something criminal”!!!

I’ve wondered since having a brief look at the decision that the SCOTUS is playing a game here … where they do not want Trump’s trials to affect the election and are hoping to clarify this decision and what “official” means at a later date after the election.

It’s reasonable to me to say you cannot sue the president for vetoing a bill, or criminally prosecute the president for commanding the military. The constitution says the president can do those things, and that the check on presidential power is congressional acts including impeachment.

Yea I dunno … why not just have no immunity? It’s not like the whole idea of the separation of powers is to ensure power is freely exercised … it’s the opposite.

If a president has to pause for a moment before doing something to ask their lawyer if it would be a crime … maybe that’s the point of having fucking legal system and constitution?

Sotomayer’s dissent provided pretty good evidence (AFAICT) that the framers would have put criminal immunity into the constitution if they thought it wise … because it was a known idea at the time that had been done by some states regarding their governors. They didn’t. Cuz that’s the whole point … “no man is above the law”.

And as for Congressional impeachment being paramount … I’m not sure that’s either necessary or even consistent with the Constitution (again, as Sotomayer’s dissent addresses).

For example … Article 1, section 3 (emphasis mine):

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

In short (AFAICT) … impeachment and general legal liability are not the same thing … and the latter totally still applies.

Beyond all of that, the general law probably achieves everything that the majority’s decision was worried about (while they were conspicuously not worried about all of the other things that one should be when crowning a king). Civil immunity is a well established doctrine (government’s just too big and complex a thing for civil responsibility to make sense). And while I don’t know anything about it, there are similar-ish ideas around criminal responsibilities that just don’t make sense for the very nature of a governmental responsibility, war, I think, being a classic example. Sotomayer again speaks about these things.

Overall, once you start to squint at it, the whole decision is kinda weird. To elevate the separation of powers to the point of creating literal lawlessness seems like plain “not seeing the forest for the trees”.

The bit I wonder about, without knowing US Constitutional law/theory well at all … is whether a democratic factor has any bearing. A criminal law is created by the legislature, a democratic body. And also caries requirements for judgment by jury. So couldn’t an argument be made that the centrality of democratic power in the constitution cuts through any concerns about the separation of powers that the SCOTUS had, and enables democratically ordained law to quash concerns about whatever interference the judiciary (or legislature?) might exercise with the executive.

I know there’s the whole “it’s not a democracy, it’s a republic” thing … but the constitution dedicates so much text to establishing the mechanisms of democracy (including the means by which the constitution itself can be altered) that it seems ridiculous to conclude that democratic power is anything but central.

Quoting from Sotomayer’s dissent (pp 29-30, paragraphing my own):

This new official-acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. Kore- matsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 246 (1944) (Jackson, J., dissenting).

The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world.

When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution.

Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to as- sassinate a political rival? Immune.

Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune.

Takes a bribe in ex- change for a pardon?

Immune. Immune, immune, immune.

They go on with an incisive critique of the majority’s reasoning:

Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trap- pings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today.

Well yea, which would be the point. The Other parts of the country’s government using their power to impose a limitation (congress and the states).

How well would a constitutional amendment fly? (I’m not a USian)

Could a states’ rights pitch be made for enshrining some legal limitation on presidential action?

Yea anything big and mainstream just seems super shallow.

I’m not on top of things to compare accurately, but it was always kinda like that (and is like that here sometimes too). But whenever I’ve gone back, I’ve definitely felt like it has gotten somewhat worse. Some of that could easily be a shifting standard from spending more time on other less “mainstream” platforms though.

I’ve peaked at that issue a couple of times, but I never worked out what the issue/feature got stuck on. Naively I would have thought it a relatively workable feature to add.

The problems are wider than that. Besides, relying “individuals just doing the right thing and going a little further to do so” is, IMO, a trap. Fix the system instead. The little thing everyone can do is think about the system and realise it needs fixing.

I’m sympathetic, but to a limit.

There are a lot of academics out there with a good amount of clout and who are relatively safe. I don’t think I’ve heard of anything remotely worthy on these topics from any researcher with clout, publicly at least. Even privately (I used to be in academia), my feeling was most don’t even know how to think and talk about it, in large part because I don’t think they do think and talk about it all.

And that’s because most academics are frankly shit at thinking and engaging on collective and systematic issues. Many just do not want to, and instead want to embrace the whole “I live and work in an ideal white tower disconnected from society because what I do is bigger than society”. Many get their dopamine kicks from the publication system and don’t think about how that’s not a good thing. Seriously, they don’t deserve as much sympathy as you might think … academia can be a surprisingly childish place. That the publication system came to be at all is proof of that frankly, where they were all duped by someone feeding them ego-dopamine hits. It’s honestly kinda sad.

Yep. But that is all a part of the problem. If academics can’t organise themselves enough to have some influence over something which is basically owned and run them already (they write the papers and then review the papers and then are the ones reading and citing the papers and caring the most about the quality and popularity of the papers) … then they can’t be trusted to ensure the quality of their practice and institutions going forward, especially under the ever increasing encroachment of capitalistic forces.

Modern day academics are damn well lucky that they inherited a system and culture that developed some old aristocratic ideals into a set of conventions and practices!

Yea, academics need to just shut the publication system down. The more they keep pandering to it the more they look like fools.

The only Constitutional restriction on them is impeachment and removal,

… and constitutional amendment … a democratic process

But if your not willing to consider that an executive might at some time be right in saying “no”, then they are effectively all powerful. That’s the “optional” part.

Then would the country have any option to being subject to the Executive’s power to override the court? You sidestepped my most important question … what kind of governmental power is ever “optional”? And I suspect that’s because you haven’t thought through what happens when you override one branch’s power with another’s.

Moreover, in highlighting how easy it is to ignore the court, you’re strangely acknowledging my “least worrisome” point but then folding that into an argument that they should therefore be ignored by the executive … because “they can” or “they might be right”. Which only highlights the danger of this line of thought … if one reads between the lines, it’d be fair to conclude that you favour the more powerful parts of government flexing their muscles. The danger being that there’s no outline here of what happens next and whether there are then more or fewer “options” for the country. If the executive can just say “nah” … what law is there? What constrains the government from its natural vice of abusing power, compared to a court that can only say somethings are not permitted?

Otherwise, if a politicised court is a concern (which I generally agree with and probably like you feel should be taken more seriously to the point that formally I actually endorse your arguments, just not substantively) … I think there are various other things that can be done without throwing the baby out with the bath water. Unfortunately, I’d fear that the politicisation of the court, to the point that controlling it’s makeup seems like half of the point in a presidential election, and the constitution (or its “hot topics”) has gone too far for any side to be willing to “let go of the rope”.

It’s the least worrisome because it can be abolished (selectively)

I’d say it’s because they don’t command the police or military and are completely subject, without input, to the democratic levers of government including, not least, amending the constitution itself.

They sit completely under the constitution, and it itself is a democratic entity. If the amendment process doesn’t feel democratic enough, well then we get the elephant in the room about how much democracy do you want and whether that’s maybe your main problem.

If cooperation is not at least partially optional, then it’s not the weakest branch

What other branch is partially optional?

In the case of a court, they’re role is passive. They only act when prompted by a party who brings a case. Legislators and the Executive do what they want when they want. So surely they’re by the most optional. Honestly have no idea what you’re trying to say here … the point of governmental power and law is arguably not to be optional.

A few months ago, the “Nazi” presence on substack and substack’s insistence on not moderating them (like at all it seemed) broke as a story, during which Casey Newton (and by extension his “platformer” blog) got engaged with substack about the issue and, after being disappointed with substack’s responses and policies, famously left for Ghost (see their post on the move here.

Pretty sure that boosted its profile and prompted talks of federating, which they were initially hesitant to do … but here we are now.

It’s interesting to see these kinds of ideas. Can’t help but feel it’s reactionary and superficially “anti-government” without looking at other deeper issues.

What is “law” without judicial enforcement? If you don’t have constitutional law, then a big pile of power balancing is thrown out, so you have to make sure you want that. That the Court is by far the least democratic institution is pretty obvious (but to be fair, in a two-party system, I’m not sure how much “democracy” there really is to start off with). But it’s also the least worrisome if you care about individual’s rights/freedoms, which is part of the reason why it’s special status makes sense: it relies entirely on cooperation from everyone else.

So, why abolish its power to enforce the constitution? Because it’s unreliably politicised? Then I think that might be the underlying issue.

Ha, yea! If you know rust, then you don’t need to reach for Python (right?!). Plus the main motivation was to contribute to lemmy itself while also learning rust. That another platform is good for personal instances doesn’t change that, though piefed does seem cool and I can see myself wanting to get involved with it at some point.

Cheers! 2 threads and 2gb RAM I’d what I would have hoped for anyway. Thanks!

But I get the database thing. Its spiking every couple minutes and a lot every hour. It’s not a big deal if you have 2 threads at least but I can see how it doesnt work for everyone in every scenario.

Yea database management seems to where the growing pains are right now (with the core devs welcoming help from anyone with DB/PostreSQL expertise) … and indeed it seems to be a perennial issue across the fediverse platforms.

If I may ask (sorry, probably annoying) … what sort of resources would you recommend for a small personal lemmy instance? (let’s say 1-5 users, ~200 community subs and a few local communities?)

Woah woah … this is legit awesome! Just tested (on lemmy.ml) and yep … seems to be working like a charm!

Give up to matc-pub for the PR (and maybe a new core dev for lemmy too?).

I figure this makes live megathread style posts/chats more viable … which is certainly cool!

I’ve mentioned this before, but an interesting possibility might be to enable selected posts to be “live chats” through a websocket like process as lemmy used to be, just for selected posts for certain windows of time, whenever a live chat dynamic is sort.

It’s the sort of thing that could be scheduled and subject to admin approval or something if resources are a concern.

Otherwise … awesome to see!