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.
`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.
If congress does not explicitly say who has the right of termination on the creation of the organization, it should be assumed that whoever is the head of the organization has the right to terminate because legally that is how every organization works. Trump is head, he can fire. The fact they don't explicitly outline this is the same reason they don't explicitly outline whether congress has the power to breathe.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
`the government isn't a fricking corporate hierarchy subject to the fricking whims of some elected CEO, you absolute moron.
`it needs to orders of magnitude more stable because there isn't a fricking market of competitors sitting around waiting to take up the fricking slack when it fails...
`u fricking unamerican neoliberal-brained r-slur
`for another example in the fricking govt: the fricking supreme court is fricking explicitly appointed for life, and not subject to anything beyond criminal impeachment, regardless of who appoints them.
!commenters
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
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.
You're equating a law enforcement investigation with the DOD and park rangers and doctors for veterans
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Budget cuts have to be made. That's why they are being made.
He's not blaming "park rangers" for his last administrative failures, he's correctly assigning it to places like the FBI. What are you even talking about at this point?
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 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.
I love another leftoid conspiracy theory!
!chuds, the Republicans are concentrating power (undefined) in the executive branch for the next president, which is why they're not instead overseeing independent agencies through legislative action.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I don't really get what you don't understand.
The Republicans can literally just pass legislation saying the EPA or whatever is now under White House management. They aren't even trying to do that because for one reason or another they prefer the President declaring he runs everything.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
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.
Okay quote the laws that specify who fires them and In will admit I am wrong
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You can literally just look up the legislation creating any agency you want and it will tell you how it's managed.
Like the Department of Education:
Holy cow that was hard. DOE employees answer to the Secretary of Education. Who would've thought?
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