Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

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 :marseyeyelidpulling:

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.

but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

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:

TITLE IV ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Part A Personnel Provisions

OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES

Sec. 401. [20 U.S.C. 3461] (a) The Secretary is authorized to appoint and fix the compensation of such officers and employees, including attorneys, as may be necessary to carry out the functions of the Secretary and the Department.

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:

Article 3

The Executive Branch

The executive branch constitutes the administrative state and is run by the President.

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.

Being this obtuse does not work in court so good luck. Seems like a pretty straightforward "lmao ur wrong" case so feel free to litigate.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

More comments


Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.