Post New

This is a short read about what I think could be a good idea.

Why our most vital institutions should be placed in a constitutional vault - beyond the reach of any President.
Asha Rangappa
May 30, 2026

...

And yet, our current structure in the U.S. is simply not sustainable. That has been made crystal clear by <waves hands at everything> but especially with the latest January 6 “slush fund” — the “unitary executive” is, quite simply, incompatible with a theory of checks and balances. A President who is 1) above the law; 2) can hire and fire everyone under him at will; and 3) decide to withhold or spend appropriated funds as he sees fit with no real way to stop him other than impeachment is no longer a “coequal” branch. I mean, if we’re at the point where the President can basically siphon funds directly from the U.S. Treasury (via the Justice Department) into his own pockets, we have to go big or go home.
...

So what would a fourth branch look like? Well, since my McGill talk, and particularly since Trump 2.0 and the Supreme Court’s expansive embrace of the unitary executive theory, I think a fourth branch would need to include more than just the Justice Department. It would also need to include any institution that must remain independent in order for the republic to continue existing. Professor Tarunabh Khaitan of Oxford University calls these “guarantor institutions” because they provide a “credible and enduring guarantee” of “non self-enforcing constitutional norms” — like, say, the independence of federal law enforcement and the administration of justice. But they could also include, he notes, institutions like “electoral commissions, human rights commissions, central banks, probity bodies such as anti-corruption watchdogs, knowledge institutions such as statistics bureaus and census boards, information commissioners, auditors general,” and so on. Essentially, it’s like putting the institutions most necessary for our democracy to function into a constitutional safe as a way to protect against the risk of the rest of the government going completely off the rails. As ours has now.

So which institutions would I place in the fourth branch? Here’s an initial list:

• Department of Justice
• Federal Reserve Board of Governors
• U.S. Treasury
• Office of Management and Budget
• Inspectors General
• Federal Election Commission
• Securities and Exchange Commission
• Nuclear Regulatory Commission

There are more (Claude lists sixteen independent agencies created by Congress whose independence rests with the Supreme Court at the moment) but this is a start.
...

I think I'd also add the CDC, EPA, and FDA to that list. More at the link:

https://asharangappa.substack.com/p/we-need-a-four...

And who nominates all the people assigned to this 4th branch of government?

I get it that the 3 branches of government (executive, House, and Senate - according a certain Republican Senator - which helps explain why we are here in the first place) are not functioning as our Founding Fathers intended because Republicans lack the balls.

How does a 4th or 5th branch of government remain independent?

How does a 4th or 5th branch of government remain independent?

Rolling terms of office so that no more than 1/3 become replaceable in any 4 year term. Yes, that means that 2/3 would be during a two-term Presidency, but I don’t think you can put much longer terms in place. (Look what “lifetime” has done to the Supreme Court. For which, BTW, I’d recommend a maximum of 15 years on that particular bench; nothing would stop one of them from moving back to a lower court if they so desired.)

Is this a proposal to institutionalize or strengthen the "deep state"? To be clear, the answer to this question being yes or no doesn't automatically mean one should be against it or for it. Maybe the US gov't functioned better before 2016 than since 2016 because it had a deep state and that was a good thing.

The biggest hole in the current system seems to me that the main "check" on the executive was the impeachment process, and that Trump demonstrated who easily that breaks down with a popular demagogue. Yes, the judicial is something of a check on the executive as they have been rolling out limiting decisions on trump pushing a year later than would have been ideal. Maybe an improvement could be creating an impeachment mechanism that could be initiated and lead by the judicial? Maybe a super-panel of appellate court level judges determines that a pattern of disregard for laws and moral/reasonable behavior is established by the president and suborned by the legislative branch? This change could be accomplished by constitutional amendment without creating a fourth branch of government.

Of course this "problem" couldn't exist without in the neighborhood of 70 million of the electorate being, more or less, in favor of what the other 70 million see as a collapse of function. I don't think we can ever get a structural "solution" until the math of that divide is changed, until some signficant fraction of the 70 million MAGA has an "oh 54it" moment and switched to "never again" mode. So while we are discussing structural solutions, do we also want to address the fact that the current shitshow is pretty much what an extremely large block of voters in this country want?

R:

before 2016 than since 2016 because it had a deep state

If you are referring to the Deep State of RW myth, it has never existed.

If you are referring to a functioning government that served the citizens, fine.

We may not have a Deep State now, but we have something much worse: an autocrat and his oligarch cronies. Sure smells a lot like Russia.

Maybe an improvement could be creating an impeachment mechanism that could be initiated and lead by the judicial? Maybe a super-panel of appellate court level judges determines that a pattern of disregard for laws and moral/reasonable behavior is established by the president and suborned by the legislative branch?

Well, that judicial panel would have to be independent of the Executive branch to prevent it being corrupted, i.e., it would need to be part of a "fourth branch", but it would also need to be accountable to voters because only they, either directly via a presidential election or indirectly through the election of representatives should have the final word on removing the POTUS.

So, such a judicial panel could start the process, but it would at least have to be "approved" in some way by the House and/or Senate before it could result in impeachment and conviction.

The biggest hole in the current system seems to me that the main "check" on the executive was the impeachment process, and that Trump demonstrated who easily that breaks down with a popular demagogue.

I don't think that's entirely accurate. The main "checks" on the executive are political and structural. They have to stand for election, and a great deal of the power of government isn't directly in their hands. Impeachment isn't there to prevent maladministration or overstepping the boundaries of the other branches - it's there in case the President commits an actual "high crime or misdemeanor." If the President is doing a terrible job of being President - doing atrocious and awful things that aren't unambiguously "high crimes" - the remedy is to vote him out at the end of his term.

This can be very frustrating, but it's inherent in any system of government. Political power exists. Someone has to wield it. Someone has to be in charge. There isn't alwas another person that you can complain to, that you can appeal to. In our system of government, when it comes to executive power, the President is given the last word on most things. And if he makes terrible choices, that's that. You don't get to "call the manager" and have him overruled. The solution is to make that person subject to politics - to force them to stand for re-election, so that if they do a terrible job the people can vote him out. That's the check on the executive.

The "structural" check is recognizing that political power exists and cannot be destroy - but it can be divided and set against itself. We do that in two ways. Massive amounts of political power in this country sit outside the federal government altogether, in the form of states that are independent sovereigns. So you have lots of powerful political actors who do not owe their power to the federal government, and provide a check on the Executive (most importantly, as we are finding out, by being able to conduct elections for federal offices independently of the federal government). And of course, Congress and the Judiciary are independent of the President - and a lot of what Trump wants to do simply hasn't happened because he can't make Congress do the things he wants. He doesn't have the funding he wants for various things, he doesn't have the tariff power he wants, he doesn't get to appoint the people he wants, he can't get the SAVE act or the ICE funding or the ballroom funding and a bunch of other things, etc.

As much as Trump wants to project the image of a strongman, he actually isn't getting a lot done that will last past his final day in office. He's achieved virtually no legislative agenda, all the stuff he's done via executive order is written in water and can be undone immediately, many of the changes he made in policy that violate statute are over time getting undone as the cases move through the courts, etc. As President he has control over the personnel and physical plant of the government, so he's done some highly visible things like gut USAID and tear down the East Wing and resurface the Reflecting Pool - but those are actually pretty small potatoes in the overall scheme of things.

There are huge downsides to removing vast swatches of the Federal government (like the entire DOJ or Treasury) outside of political accountability. There's reasons why we would want those agencies to be subject to a person who is directly accountable to voters. We won't have a clear understanding of how well the existing checks and balances worked to limit Trump until after he's been out of office for a few years, but I'd be very leery about putting vast amounts of the government outside of normal politics.

There are huge downsides to removing vast swatches of the Federal government (like the entire DOJ or Treasury) outside of political accountability. There's reasons why we would want those agencies to be subject to a person who is directly accountable to voters. We won't have a clear understanding of how well the existing checks and balances worked to limit Trump until after he's been out of office for a few years, but I'd be very leery about putting vast amounts of the government outside of normal politics.

First, sure, an awful president is ultimately accountable to the voters, but they only have a say every 4 years. That leaves 4 years of unfettered non-"high crimes and misdemeanors" that such a POTUS can inflict on the country, such as Trump is inflicting now on crumbling American body politic (not to mention his several arguably impeachable offenses). Plus, impeachment and conviction are impotent if Congress is cravenly subservient to a "strong man" president, such as it is now.

As for the accountability of a new fourth branch, why couldn't that be solved by independent committees/commissions appointed by Congress and perhaps also with new members put up for a general popular vote? Heck, just put all the members on the ballot every 4 years like the president. And also impose term limits on the members of those independent groups.

...Ok, as I'm writing this, I supposed ideally we wouldn't WANT to have the members of such independent groups to have to be concerned with - and perhaps even tailor their decisions to maximizing their chances of winning - the next election. But I'm sure some compromise could be devised. He says optimistically...

As for the accountability of a new fourth branch, why couldn't that be solved by independent committees/commissions appointed by Congress and perhaps also with new members put up for a general popular vote? Heck, just put all the members on the ballot every 4 years like the president. And also impose term limits on the members of those independent groups.

What problem are you trying to solve, then?

Are you just creating a "second President," giving having that second President be named by the members of a popularly elected commission (ie. a second Electoral College), and giving that second President control of some subset of the cabinet departments - like Justice and Treasury? That's a recipe for disaster, because you need those departments to function with the other departments of government. And you're in no better of a position. You still need someone to be named to actually run these agencies - if it's a second President, or some "commission" that exists just to name people to run these departments, if the commission is a political body then the folks they appoint will be named politically as well.

There's evidence to support independent agencies. Many countries have their central banks somewhat independent of the elected government, and obviously the judiciary is independent in many countries as well. But the trade-off to that independence is that the agencies don't have to be responsive to the electorate....and that's not necessarily a good thing for agencies like Justice or Treasury.

When considering independent agencies that are outside of normal political pressures, you can fall into the trap of imagining their benefits when headed by a Solomonic leader who will make good decisions. Wouldn't it be great if the Attorney General wasn't beholden to the President, and DOJ would therefore be able to do only good things? But you also have to think about how that independence works when those agencies are led by truly atrocious people, or people with their own political agendas. Imagine what happens with ICE in Minnesota or Chicago if Kristy Noem is independent - not subject to being removed when the President and/or Congress start facing political costs from how the Department is being run? Or Pam Bondi running DOJ without having to care about any blowback from any choices she makes?

Actually I think it's fairly simple.

One of the early generals that Trump fired - first election - described him as a man of limited comprehension and questionable character. That's been pretty accurate.

We need to elect politicians with the qualities anticipated by the founders of the Constitution. People of comprehension, high character, and devoted to their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Very few of them today in the Congress and Administration. Or Supreme Court. We've lost our character.

Voters have voted their anger, their lack of knowledge, and their feeling of being ignored and left behind as the gap widens between the average citizen and the upper wealth classes. Meanwhile, those upper classes have taken advantage of politicians willing to sell their character, and oath, for reelection money that can only be described as bribes. Everybody looking after their own angers and incomes, few watching out for the USA. Trump et al have recognized this, and taken advantage of it. Promise what people want. Take advantage of position to look out for themselves.

I wrote and posted long ago that the voters must encounter the results of their self-centered actions, and realize they are not really in their self interest. And it must last long enough, and be severe enough, that eyes would open and people would return to what's best for the country. And, ultimately, themselves.

We need politicians with the guts to uphold their duties and oaths. And the guts to address the income disparity between the upper wealth and themselves. And included are those of us more fortunate to do the same and vote for what's best for our country.

That's against basic human nature, to watch out for ourselves first. So we need leaders that can inspire all of us to do better.

It's hard to find those these days.

That's against basic human nature, to watch out for ourselves first. So we need leaders that can inspire all of us to do better.

It's hard to find those these days.

Agree with this. The problem is that one of our political parties has completely abandoned any sense of duty to the country in their quest for power. This thread - and the ridiculous notion that we need a 4th branch of government that's completely unaccountable to voters - is proof of that.

The democrats lost an election. But rather than accept that reality and ponder why they lost, they're declaring the side that people actually voted for to be a disease or symptom of some kind of sickness endemic throughout the country. That's incredibly backwards...yet telling.

So here's the Rx for the democrat party: Stop assuming you're the incumbents. Basically that mentality automatically assumes that you Know Better Than The Voters Do.

And it makes all the screaming about FASCISM hilariously backwards. Because assuming you know better than the voters...is how one arrives at fascism.

The problem is that one of our political parties has completely abandoned any sense of duty to the country in their quest for power.

True, Dope.

The problem is that one of our political parties has completely abandoned any sense of duty to the country in their quest for power.

True, Dope.

Finally seeing the light, Dope? Nah. Never happen.

I don't think that's entirely accurate. The main "checks" on the executive are political and structural. They have to stand for election, and a great deal of the power of government isn't directly in their hands. Impeachment isn't there to prevent maladministration or overstepping the boundaries of the other branches - it's there in case the President commits an actual "high crime or misdemeanor." If the President is doing a terrible job of being President - doing atrocious and awful things that aren't unambiguously "high crimes" - the remedy is to vote him out at the end of his term.

Actually, this is not entirely accurate. You mention “high crime or misdemeanor”, but then slide to things that are “high crimes”. The actual word you jump past is “misdemeanor”, which in colonial America (ie: to the people writing the Constitution) involved any sort of behavior or “lesser wrong” including public brawling, a breach of public trust, or (for example, at the time) speaking against the King.

A “misdemeanor” could include anything and everything from property damage to public disturbance, public drunkenness or even blasphemy. Now if you want to say that “high” modifies both “crimes” and misdemeanors, well there are “high misdemeanors” of the time, which included abuse of the public trust, corruption, or subversion of government in any of many forms.

But back to the idea that “they have to stand for election” and therefore “impeachment” isn’t a “check”, the idea of impeachment exists precisely to remove an elected official within their term - and the reason it isn’t used more often is that the Founding Fathers did not foresee the “team” aspect of politics; the concept of “political parties” was something they entirely missed. So as we have seen, even members of a party who find the occupant odious have a strong incentive not to vote in favor of impeachment, because that signals “not on the team”, which will come to haunt them at their own election time, not to mention in any other political dealings they may have up until that time (committee assignments, funding, even where their office is located).

I am quite sure impeachment would be rarely - but more often used than it is (total impeachments: 4, total convictions: 0) if the votes were secret, which would largely eliminate the accountability of the “team player” aspect of it all. And perhaps that would be a good thing, although I would like to see the votes recorded for posterity and made public at some future date (10 years? 25 years?) later.

Anyway, “impeachment” is a 100% political - and 0% legal - process. It is whatever the organizing bodies say it is, and the “cries and misdemeanors” need not be written nor codified in some law somewhere (although it would be better if they were, obviously). Impeachment IS a “check”. Not a very good one, obviously, but a little better than not having one at all.

But back to the idea that “they have to stand for election” and therefore “impeachment” isn’t a “check”, the idea of impeachment exists precisely to remove an elected official within their term - and the reason it isn’t used more often is that the Founding Fathers did not foresee the “team” aspect of politics; the concept of “political parties” was something they entirely missed.

Yes, but for a completely different problem.

I don't think I was clear, but impeachment does not exist as a check on maladministration. It exists to check against the Executive violating criminal law. It exists to remove an elected official within their term for breaking a criminal law. It does not exist as a check against the Executive doing anything else bad.

This thread is about needing a 4th branch of government - transferring some of the power away from the Executive branch and having it instead wielded by someone else, like an independent agency. That's not a solution to the problem that impeachment exists to solve. It's trying to address the problem of the Executive wielding executive power in a bad way. That his appointees aren't doing their jobs properly, or that he's using his powers in a bad way to bad purposes. Solving the issued of "[a] President who is 1) above the law; 2) can hire and fire everyone under him at will; and 3) decide to withhold or spend appropriated funds as he sees fit with no real way to stop him other than impeachment is no longer a “coequal” branch." Of the eight agencies the OP author suggested making independent, seven of the eight have nothing to do with the criminal behavior of the President himself. They're being suggested to improve how executive power is exercise - the "hire and fire" or "withhold funds" or being "above the law" in terms of complying with the rules Congress has adopted on how the Executive is to behave.

The checks against that problem aren't impeachment. They're political and the structural limits on the Executive that exist because power is otherwise diffused and dispersed among different governmental bodies. And they've kind of worked, actually. For example, none of the three things the OP author mentioned are fully happening. The President ultimately acquiesced and complied with most of the Anti-Impoundment matters that he was threatening, he's been forced to climb down on some of his major policy positions by the courts (most notably with tariffs), and he hasn't just gone out and violated the civil service laws (but instead tried to work within them).

It exists to remove an elected official within their term for breaking a criminal law.

And yet that's not what happens. It is mostly used for political purposes. In fact, I recall you saying precisely that some time ago.

If it was "criminal", then the end result should be prison. Not simple removal. But that isn't ever on the table. Not with Nixon, not with Clinton, not even with the Felon (who is an actual felon).

Remove immunity from the POTUS, and THAT creates accountability. Suddenly the GA DA can file charges about election tampering (for example), and if convicted the POTUS goes to the slammer (and is simultaneously removed from office). I think the Founders never dreamed of things like this, so they didn't set it up that way. They never conceived of a wanton felon in charge. They thought only "gentlemen" would attain that office, which in their day was the norm. Heck, Jefferson wanted to ban political parties -I suspect- in part because they would form "teams", and refuse to discipline "one of their own" no matter how much he deserved it. (I said "he", because I also suspect Jefferson never envisioned a woman in a position of power, being an 18th century man. Not because I was singling anyone out, in this case. Just a general observation.)

And yet that's not what happens. It is mostly used for political purposes. In fact, I recall you saying precisely that some time ago.

It is a political remedy for a criminal violation. It is a mechanism by which the Congress can remove a federal officer from their office when they have committed a crime. The procedure by which Congress acts is not subject to criminal procedure, so the process of impeachment and conviction isn't a judicial criminal process. But it exists as a remedy for criminal violations. The Constitutional Convention specifically considered - and rejected - adding maladministration as an additional ground for impeachment. It is not the intent of the provision to let Congress remove a federal officer simply for doing a terrible job, but rather for depriving an actual criminal of their office.

If it was "criminal", then the end result should be prison. Not simple removal. But that isn't ever on the table. Not with Nixon, not with Clinton, not even with the Felon (who is an actual felon).

Nothing in the Constitution takes prison off the table. Congress doesn't get to send people to prison, though - only the courts can do that. If the President were to literally go shoot someone on 5th Avenue, if Congress were to remove him from office he could thereafter be prosecuted and sent to jail in due course, assuming he was convicted at trial by a jury.

I think the Founders never dreamed of things like this, so they didn't set it up that way.

I think they absolutely dreamed of things like this, which is why the Constitution has an impeachment process. Indeed, the entire structure of the Constitution is premised on the idea that whatever type of government you make, any given office you create will at one point or another be occupied by a terrible person. They were a very worldly bunch.

We also have to remember that a lot of the behaviors that we today regard as horrific violations of the public trust were perfectly ordinary practices to the Founders. These guys were 150 years before the progressive reforms of the early 1900's. There was no professional civil service, no Anti-Impoundment Act, no Administrative Procedure Act, or any of the other things that we take for granted are the hallmark of a professional civil service. Government ran on raw political power, patronage and spoils were the order of the day, and it was more likely they assumed than officeholders would be throwing the sharpest of elbows and doing political favors for each other right and left. Ironically, the fact that we've moved away from the grubbiness and featherbedding of early politics may have contributed to some of the issues we face today....but that's another discussion altogether.

The problem is that one of our political parties has completely abandoned any sense of duty to the country in their quest for power.

True, Dope.
****

But when one looks at recent cycles-----

The politicians of both parties that abandon sense of duty in quest for power are *rewarded* ---- because in a Tribal entity ---- the extremes reward their respective Muftis with power -- and said Muftis make sure to keep the tribe in line with fear, bribes, whatever.


This is just one of the problems with - lack of common civics knowledge and responsibility. Digital culture run amok where it's easy to be in a silo echo chamber. Bad culture - and global trade run amok, hurting huge swaths of people ---who get poorer and angrier and again----more prone to rewarding Muftis who cater to extremes---in exchange for power and not the national interest .


Tis why - culture, common civics knowledge and heritage, little things like that-----negate well intentioned efforts in most categories of public policies. I'm not talking the usual dog whistles of "Pro life" or "quotas". I"m talking basic culture, basic traditions, basic anchors and foundations and norms.


Today in a Blue City -- someone will go to his nasty crime ridden inner city school where 70% of his peers are from babies-out-of-wedlock homes....reinforcing poverty, despair, and dependence to one another as the norm. And they'll keep voting for the same Mufti

Today in some Red State -- swaths or people will be missing out on health care--either because their Mufti's turned a god damn vaccine into a political identity-gang-symbol. thing. Some Red Stater who actually *wanted* care will be rushed thru a 10 minute Doctor Visit where there's no listening or diagnosing or preventing taking place and if he needs certain procedures, the HMO will delay or prevent it. And he'll keep voting for the same Mufti.

Like someone said - culture -- digital culture run amok ----free trade unbridled-----balkanization -------will all lead to a First World Nation---with visible oddly structural 3rd world traits.


Welcome.

What problem are you trying to solve, then?

The failure of constitutional democracy. I thought we had some basic laws which are very hard to change that live in the constitution, among which were no emoluments, the first, fourth, fifth and ninth amendments. We apparently also have/had laws that the president couldn't unilaterally declare arbitrarily large tariffs. I sorta thought we had laws that the president couldn't threaten american cities and states with the military, that the military was actually precluded from operating within the US. I hoped the president setting up his own privately directed "police" force complete with unmarked cars and masks and authorized to shoot American citizens with impunity must be illegal, and I thought at least the 4th amendment prevented that and warrantless forced entries into the homes in the US.

Having naively (I realize now) thought all the above, when impeachment/conviction was not used against a president doing all those things, I assumed it was a failure of the impeachment process. Further it looked like the impeachment process had failed because it had not been contemplated that with party coordination a corrupt president AND a corrupt senate and house could be elected.

And so I thought, simplest fix, have a second path for impeachment/conviction like response. No need for a 4th branch, it could be the judiciary doing it.

The thing I take from albaby's response is that, essentially, the theory of the strong executive is basically right and the ability for 70 million American's to choose a government that operates in a way that a different 70 million American's believe is actually illegal is a feature, not a bug, of the system. So I had thought the problem with judicial enforcement was it was too slow, the president could do all sorts of illegal stuff and not be caught up short for a year at a time due to the way the judiciary worked. And I thought in a RICO inspired moment, if the judiciary could see that the president was an habitual criminal we could write a mechanism into place to yank that guy. Maybe it would take 6 months for them to do that, but it would be a once and for all solution instead of just having to spend an entire presidential term allowing illegal things to be consistently proposed and implemented for 1/2 a year to a year at a time, until each individual act was slowly taken down by the judiciary. Sort of a "3 strikes and your out" rule for the president.

Is there a good reason we should have to put up with a president who violates the constitution and the laws instead of changing them?

R:

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.