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.
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.
You don't think Republicans benefit from being on all those committees, getting all that inside information, and wheeling and dealing with various non-profits and bureaus to benefit themselves? They benefit from the status quo, so why change it? They're politicians, zoom zoom.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
They can still make committees.
You seem confused. When Congress passes legislation, the President approves it, and the courts don't scrap it, it's the law. The President can't just say "lol no" thirty years later. Maybe you need a refresher on how the US government works:
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
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.
And who is the secretary of educations boss?
You've literally just proven yourself wrong. Chain of command means Trump can fire.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I see, you think the Constitution says something like:
It doesn't. It lists out the President's powers, one of those is to appoint the head of any department, another is to appoint "inferior officers" (bureaucrats) unless Congress grants that authority to the head of department or the courts.
The US government isn't a business and the President's unilateral power is deliberately limited to the military. Even with the military the ability to decide to go to war is supposed to be limited to Congress even though in practice they've delegated that away to the President.
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