https://old.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1isvzgu/the_full_executive_order_is_out_this_is_the/
4d ago
(reddit.com)
1,729 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: 31,128
BROWSE EFFORTPOSTS
SITE GUIDE
HOLES
PING GROUPS
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The actual thread is
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 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.
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.
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.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
`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.
More options
Context
!commenters I didn't read this guy's posts but he sounds mad
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
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.
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.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Yeah generally when someone operates the way trump is it is reaching fascism.
This is not normal. If you were to write a scenario in which a techno fascist cabal destroyed the country this is how it would go.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
So true! Normal is when you arrest your political opponent and silence/prosecute your opposition.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Trump broke the law and was charged lmao.
Being a "politcal opponent" does not mean the law ceases to apply to you.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
So did Biden! He had all those documents in his garage, hopefully Trump returns us to normalcy and raids his property.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Are you genuinely r-slurred? Every president has classified documents, its expected.
What is not expected is they take top secret documents to their florida resort, share them with random people, then refuse to return them for 6 months after being asked to, while lying about having them.
You guys tried this back then as well - to claim these are even comparable examples is so absurd it might as well be indistinguishable from mental illness.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Biden was literally sharing them with the ghost writer admitting he shouldn't to said ghost writer. Lmao.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Except not really, and again, were returned when asked, without delay.
Like i cannot stress enough how dim of a person you are if you think these events are even similar.
You understand the DOJ met with trump 6 months before he was arrested and told them he had to return the documents right? You know he then told his lawyers to lie to the doj (documented btw) and tell them they didnt have them and or were already returned?
Like do you unironically have some kind of learning disability?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yeah they were returned the moment he started raiding people and people started asking questions. Just really above the board shit.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
You're the only one with a learning disability
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
UMM BUT ACKSHULLY ITS (Dddddd)iffffrent!
Lol
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
So basically it's okay unless Trump does it, gotcha
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
illiterate?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Your whole argument hinges on he said they said. You don't trust Trump and we don't trust that admin or fed. Welcome to the pile
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Uh no Chud, wrong again! They were secured in his Corvette in the garage of the house he rented to his crackhead son who had no-show million-dollar jobs in Ukraine, Uzbekistan, China and Turkmenistan, during a time period when he was pardoned for a suspiciously long time along with members of the Biden family who had numerous offshore bank accounts with massive wire transfer activity. Check le facts
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
No, he's not.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
the NYC thing where they temporarily removed the statute of limitations was mega strag material lol
documents thing was reasonable tho
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
And the nine year fishing expedition and wiretaps?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
you mean when paul manafort as wiretapped before he was ever involved with Donald Trump because he was a fricking ukrainian corruption lord?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I mean the phony oppo research that laundered through the fisa court and then used to wire tap his entire campaign.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
"Trump broke the law nobody has ever been charged with lol, I'm totally not mad the democrat party is dead"
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
nobody has ever been charged with these? in what world?
has anyone else lied about returning classified information and refused to do so for 6 months?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
No president, Trump said they were empty folders with classified on the front.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Lmao no that's different you see because Trump told a bank he works with his property was worth 20 million instead of 17.5 million he needs to rot for beating Hillary I mean lyIng on record!!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
And shoot them in the ear
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
reaching fascism? you're not typically this mealy-mouthed. is it fascism or not
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I would call it proto fascism, setting dangerous precedents and a clear authoritarian power grab.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The fascisms are closing in
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Generally when congress cedes all authority to the president and said president is openly violating the law and doing unconstitutional things while declaring that "unelected judges" also have no authority youre headed in a bad direction.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yeah true most historians @collectijism read are also shelf stockers
Trans lives matter
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
It's actually House of the Fascism, the prequel set in the Fascism Cinematic Universe
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Isn't running for President itself an authoritarian power grab?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
No?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
So why do they do it, if not for the power and authority? They just want a really nice picture to put on their wall?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
it depends on the person, for Trump? yeah for sure, most people probably do it for a legacy, a chance to shape American history.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
So, power and authority.
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
He's r-slurred mouth
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
omg do you have power over your peepee or are you just that big of a cute twink
( ‥)？
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
fascism is when anything
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Are you illiterate?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
are you?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
the only conclusion i can come to is you can't read if this was your response to what i said.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The only blah blah blah blah you can't read
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
got his butt
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt#First_and_second_terms_(1933%E2%80%931941)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
where in this does it support being said?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Yeah he's supposed to be furthering globalist agendas in America and promoting collectivist policy while feeding his base bullshit! What the frick is going on!!!
Hahah shit libs are shocked
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
wait this sounds based, who can I vote for for this?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Darnit Kamala where did that fricking money even go???
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
1.) Congress has the power of the purse
2.) The Necessary and Proper Clause
Rightoids are as bad as shitlibs wit this shit—it's all great when their r-slur does it but it will be the end of the world when President AOC decides to have the SEC shut down crypto !nonchuds
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Unironically, with how r-slurred the rightoids act itt about their constitution and what trump does, I really hope in 4 years when the dems inevitably win, they do it with a
as candidate so we get president shaniqua with her department of equity who will force every department and office to be equitably 20% black (fba), 20% black (immigrant), 20% hard-working American, 20% injun, and 20% white/asian. But its fine, Tariq Nasneed is head of DOE and he was already very publicly part of shaniquas campaign!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Anything that is explicitly funded by congress should continue to be funded. As far as I can tell he is abiding by that and that is pointless to bring up
The necessary and proper law doesn't really apply because it doesn't designate who is in charge of firing. One would have to assume it acts legally as every other organization, with the people who are the heads having the right to terminate. And Trump is the head so...
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Who elected Elon?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
same people who elected the bureaucrats
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
We must replace faceless government bureaucrats with faceless DOGE bureaucrats
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
They aren't faceless, reddit keeps doxxing them.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
the typical problem with unelected bureaucrats is that they lurk in the shadows as unaccountable unknowns wielding power.
elon wasnt elected but he's 1. highly visible and 2. tied at the hip to trump. this makes both him and trump directly accountable which is a massive improvement over the shadows.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
How is he accountable? To whom? How is it better than publicly known officials accountable to congress who regularly get roasted by congress when shit goes wrong?
Also, Moosk doesnt even lead Doge according to the white house. But I'm sure the literally anonymous unknown shadowy figure at the head of doge is totally accountable....
Its pretty hilarious how rightoids just gobble up the propaganda about how theyre secretly ruled by muh deep state, without either being able to define deep state nor having even a cursory "civics 101" level understanding of their own system or constitution.
Literal subhuman level r-slurs, no better than BIPOCs in africa.
Especially ironic with all the greek statue-pfp rightoids on social media.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Trump was elected and appointed him. He has authority over DOGE like the rest of the bureaucracy.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Actually the Trump admin says that Musk has no official authority and does not oversee DOGE.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Honestly, I don't care how it works. Previously the White House was censoring critics on Twitter - indirectly, so it was ok. Maybe Musk is just running DOGE - indirectly, so it's ok.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Whadabout Muh demoncraps
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
"I'm left of the democrats so I'm not a wingcuck" is wingcuck behavior
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
You will care when Musk cuts your bennies.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I didn't even get a penny in Covid stimubucks, I promise you the government takes from me more than it gives
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
show them bb i'm on your side
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
You post on rdrama, you are definitely getting lifetime disability payments.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Okay then I do not understand why the question was asked if he has no authority
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Elons involvement in the trump administration was no secret in Trumps campaign and doge is no exception to this executive order. Elon really doesn't have any official power. He just advises Trump
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Me. I did. I knew my vote for Donald J Duck would really be a vote for Elon J Duck.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
The whole point of having branches is that they are supposed to share balanced amounts of power to prevent dictators.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Isn't the unelected bureaucracy in question part of the executive branch?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's like burgers don't think anything through
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
afaik bureaucrats are mostly part of the executive branch.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context