https://old.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1isvzgu/the_full_executive_order_is_out_this_is_the/
4d ago
(reddit.com)
1,730 thread views
#344033
earned 376 coins from votes
Reported by:
- Geralt_of_Uganda : h/pol
Not sure if this has been posted but it seems law is having a melty over Drumpfler declaring himself God-Emperor
- 244
- 90
Top Poster of the Day:
J
Current Registered Users: 31,131
BROWSE EFFORTPOSTS
SITE GUIDE
HOLES
PING GROUPS
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
i know u never read the constitution (it's not actually that long),but the president doesn't have the power to define agencies (beyond vetoing law), only congress does:the president doesn't have the power to fire heads of the independent agencies, as they are appointed into a position defined by law and once in the position they can only be removed by legal means, not because the president doesn't like them.heck technically congress doesn't even have the vest the power of appointment into him:likewise the president doesn't have the power to interpret law for independent agencies, nor does he have the power to give himself that power. it's the job of agencies to execute as they fit within the confines of the law, and it's job of the courts to keep them in check, not the president.the president is purposefully limited in his power and to think otherwise is extremely unamerican!commenters
also judicial power (the power to interpret law when parties disagree) rests solely in the fucking judicial branch
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
None of what you quoted from the constitution really supports what you are claiming. Probably because the founding fathers would be baffled by the state we created
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
`reading is fricking hard with all the fricking cognitive dissonance, eh, b-word?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
No I just read what you said and read what you quoted. Like the first part: you said he couldn't fire people but the part you quoted just says he can appoint people. Nothing about firing. One would assume if he can appoint he can fire them.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
`the power to appoint (with advice/consent from senate) does not then presume a fricking power to fire. literally that same sentence says he can appoint supreme court justices ... and what because u think he can appoint them, he can also fire them, b-word?
`ur really that fricking stupid eh, b-word?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Well you didn't quote a part that explicitly says who can terminate them or that the president cannot terminate them. One would assume that the founding fathers did not intend to have the head of these bureaucracies just be unfireable and unaccountable. They honestly did intend for them to be created at all.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
`they are fricking accountable ... to congress u moron, and to the fricking justice system. congress can simply change the fricking law defining/eliminating their appointments, and the fricking justice system can remove them for not following the fricking law
`the president does not have that power to just eliminate them, as the fricking constitution explicitly stated those appointments are fricking defined by law, not by the fricking president.
`it is fricking worth noting the fricking president does participating in lawmaking too, and can make it difficult pass laws he disagrees with, so it's not like he has no power here
`but the fricking position is not a fricking tool for 51% to elect a fricking single person, and then ram a fricking bunch of policy change thru u dribbling unamerican frickwit
!commenters
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Where does it say explicitly that the way to eliminate these people is through congress. How do you pass a law to fire a person lmao
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
`it literally says their appointments are fricking defined by law, which can be changed by congress. if the fricking congress wanted to make appointment subject to presidential removal they can do that.
`because u lack elementary education:
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
!commenters I didn't read this guy's posts but he sounds mad
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
don't worry comrade, he's mad AND r-slurred
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
The protections on the state workforce are there to anchor against the whims and wiles of the opinions of each administration changeover. Imagine if everyone every 4 years acted like Trump and made wild swinging attacks at the workforce they gave at their disposal to get a lot done.
What Trump is deftly not telling anyone is that every time there is an administration change, the top few layers of all government agencies resign and are replaced with appointees.
Whatever Trump thinks he got defied on last time was the result of him being bad at appointing people to run those departments, or literally not caring back then.
Eight years ago the Public Enemy was The Swamp of elected officials, and now the Public Enemy are the mid level government schlubs working against him, who he has no evidence exist but they have to be there to blame for his failures.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Those schlubs used the steele report, a hit piece essentially funded by Clinton, to run riot with Russia investigations and found nothing on Trump. However, it did kneecap his administration.
Also shit like Miley genuinely undermining him. Sorry no more billions for ukraine and peru trans comics, better luck next election.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
The Constitution explicitly lays out the power the various branches of the federal government have. You aren't supposed to read it as "the President has any power not explicitly limited by the Constitution," you're supposed to read it as "the President does not have any power not explicitly granted by the Constitution."
Limiting the monarch-equivalent's power is like half the point of the Constitution (the other half was to have most governing done by the states but the 14th did away with that, oh well, at least it means we get guns).
!nonchuds remember when chuds pretended they were against granting the feds sweeping powers?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Is this about the executive agencies? They're within the executive branch, dumb dumb. They're his underlings.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
He doesn't have the authority to directly manage these departments (unless Congress gives it to him), he can only appoint the principle officer who reports to him.
The only organization the President has unilateral authority over is the military in his capacity as Commander in Chief.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
We'll see what the courts say, but independent agencies and their loose control from the legislators has had r-slurred outcomes over the years. They're only way of moving up is making more regulations, regardless of their net impact to society. It's been a breeding ground of negative externalities, and it's essentially unconstrained.
!freemarket !neolibs
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Wow if only Daddy controlled Congress he'd be able to do something about this.
Wait, he does. So why aren't his lackeys there trying to do anything? Maybe because Republicans figure they've got the Presidency on lock going forward and are trying to concentrate as much power there as possible.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Supreme Court already ruled on this in the 1930s
Executive branch doesn't have control of independent agencies created by the legislative branch
A newer 2020 ruling only added that the president can fire people for "just cause". That's it
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
The executive branch does have the authority too directly manage the departments within the executive, obviously
trans lives matter
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I don't know man I'm not seeing anything here that makes him CEO of anything. Says Congress can give him that authority over specific departments if they like.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
The head of the organization is implied to be the executive branch and any organization with hierarchy the head honcho can terminate employment.
The constitution doesn't get congress to breathe so they should drop dead and die
Within the constitution there are reasonable interpretations that can be made and the clear intention is that someone can fire them and that person would be the head of the executive. Suggesting congress pass laws to fire someone is pants on head r-slurred, and that power is not explicitly outlined in the constitution. You would have to assume that as well.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It explicitly says Congress controls the appointments of Inferior Officers via their legislative powers, you don't have to "assume" anything. What you have to "assume" is that the President has some unwritten authority to bypass Congress and fire them to appoint his own guys.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The president appoints his own guys because ITS SAYS RIGHT THERE IN THE FRICKING QUOTE THAT HE APPOINTS THEM
Where does it say congress has to be consulted to terminate. WHERE.
By your own rules it has to say that explicitly or it does not count
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Do you think the laws creating these agencies Trump's trying to take over don't specify that?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
mad and coping
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Elaborate Jimbithy
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I did
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
chuds dont even know that Article 8 establishes the administrative state as the 4th branch of government
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Im pretty sure this is referring to actual executive departments. I dont think the constitution says anything about federal agencies
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
`they are fricking "inferior officers", i don't see what is so fricking hard about this
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Thats a massive stretch just like every thing else congress interprets from the constitution. A single line saying that the president has the power to appoint officers and congress has the power to vest them does not mean that congress has the power to establish a gorilian agencies that can essentially pass their own laws. The officers were intended to enforce laws, not for congress to pas a law that is intentionally vauge as possible so they can create an agency that has the power to interpret the law however they want
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
`"inferior officers" is fricking pretty darn clear
`but i do agree with you that the fricking likes of "interstate commerce" has been massively abused
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
!tldr
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
this is fricking why we shouldn't let the fricking landless vote
!commenters
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I can, but I try to save my spoons for people whose opinions are worthy
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
"Wow, congrats on managing to read half of the Constitution without getting a headache. Meanwhile, the rest of us are over here with our actual understanding of American governance. Next thing you know, you'll be trying to explain why 'veto' doesn't mean 'make stuff up'. "
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Thank
@GeneralHurricane iirc lol
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's ok I'm a
@J alt
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
For what?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Hes the mind behind it i cant take any credit here
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
gg
@GeneralHurricane
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
The president is definitely allowed to fire agency heads if they ignore an executive order that falls under the president's powers.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Nobody disputes that he has the authority to appoint and fire the heads of departments. That power is granted in the Constitution.
That's not what he's trying to do here. This executive order is saying the entirety of every agency is under direct White House management, when the Constitution grants Congress the power to say how agencies are managed via legislation.
What he should do is advocate for Congress, which he controls, to pass legislation putting these agencies under White House management. But then if they lose Congress in two years they can just change it back, so he's going this route instead.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
`what's the fricking point of congress lawfully establishing an independent agency if the fricking president can just issue an EO demanding interference, and then fire "for cause", b-word? lol
`the EO is fricking asserting control over policy ... which is a fricking legislative power, not an executive power. it's not the fricking presidents job to determine what policy is, it's only his job to execute upon decided policy.
`if believe otherwise it's cause ur a fricking dishonest unamerican twat. the fricking president isn't a fricking lawmaker, he can't make EOs that are fricking of an enforceable nature to people he cannot fire at will already.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
So if the president can't create and manage agencies by EO does that mean that a bunch of agencies have been operating illegally for decades? USAID comes to mind...
Because if these rules only matter when it's politically convenient it's hard to take it seriously
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
`it's hard to take seriously someone too r-slurred to double check their presumption, literally the fricking wikipedia page on it
`further more:
you can read more about it here: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN12500
but tbh, can you even read, b-word?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I know, I kinda just wanted you to get mad. That said, some of those pre-existing agencies were created by EOs anyway. It's not really that unusual.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
`they need to be in response to a fricking law. constitutionally the fricking president cannot just create agencies, as appointments must be provided by law. in it's article 2 section 2.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
The president gets to decide how the law is enforced. So these agencies would definitely fall under his purview. An argument could be made that a unified understanding of the law is required in order for the president to enforce the law. The courts would then determine if that understanding is constitutional.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
only if ur an unamerican dimwit.
`he can't fire people congress doesn't make it legal for him to do so, as doing so wouldn't be executing the fricking laws faithfully, now would it, b-word?
`if the fricking law requires a fricking "just" cause then to allow it from merely disobeying an EO would effectively grant him the fricking power to fire at will
`why would the fricking courts do that, b-word? we both know the fricking courts have a fricking long history of limiting executive power, as we are a fricking constitutional republic not a fricking dictatorship. the fricking courts aren't concerned with muh govt efficiency, they are fricking concerned with the fricking longevity of the fricking nation. which isn't under threat tbh, trump is fricking acting just as hysterically as the fricking lefties are.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Which part of the constitution do you think takes precedence when it comes to enforcing laws: article 1 sec8 or Article 2 sec3?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
`how are fricking they in conflict, b-word? he needs to take care that the fricking laws are fricking carried out faithfully, and he can't do that if he ignores the fricking establishment of independent agencies.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The supreme Court ruled that these agencies can't just make up new rules wholecloth. You have the laws on the books, now it's the executive that determines if those laws have been broken and whether to pursue penalties. At least that's probably what's gonna be argued.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
`why the fricking frick would the fricking courts grant the fricking power of direct judicial review over those agencies, b-word? if the fricking president feels a fricking law is fricking being broken he is fricking completely free to take it up in court in front of an actual judge. all the fricking lawyers involved is this fricking on the fricking trump side should be forcibly disbarred from ever practicing again.
`taking power from the fricking executive is a fricking good thing. we are a fricking constitutional republic where congressional representatives define the fricking power structure of the fricking executive, the fricking job of the fricking executive is fricking only to execute within those constraints.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context