The fuck it isOriginally Posted by TheDemonLord
In the riders seat
The fuck it is
"If you can make black marks on a straight from the time you turn out of a corner until the braking point of the next turn, then you have enough power."
The Majestic Metal Wizard
So, another quango is being gutted.On June 29, 2020, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5–4 decision that the firing protections of the director are an unconstitutional restraint on the president's ability to oversee executive branch agencies. "Such an agency lacks a foundation in historical practice and clashes with constitutional structure by concentrating power in a unilateral actor insulated from Presidential control,"
To be clear - at the moment it still exists, it has just been told to stop work. Note - this is inline with The Democrats telling, oh gee, I dont know... ICE and Border Patrol not to do their jobs, despite both organizations still existing.
If it was to be completely removed, without an Act from Congress - that would be wrong. However, as above from the SC ruling, I am not exactly shedding a tear.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
The Majestic Metal Wizard
Well, hold up there.
If we look at what has been happening:
- Funding leftist news outlets
- Funding leftist activist groups
- Organizing hit-pieces against Republican and right-leaning individuals
- Using the Office to push Leftist agendas
By simply stopping these and firing the activists, that is the very definition of politically neutral.
The fact that you think a return to centre is not politically neutral is another datapoint in the myriad of examples of how far to the left Government structures have shifted.
Now, to your point - if Elon and co started doing some of the following:
- Funding the Right Wing news Outlets
- Funding various Militia groups
- Organizing hit pieces in mainstream news against Democrats and Left-Leaning individuals.
- Using the Office to push right wing agendas (Guns for all!)
Then, you would have a point - but they are not.
This part is key - simply stopping the creep of leftist takeover is righting the ship.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
Geriatric hoon
Vance mentioned the "legitimate powers of the President". That's fine but much of what Trump is doing falls way short of legitimate and is in fact unlawful. Which, of course, is why judges are finding against him. Trump does not have the power to set up a government department nor to close one. That is the role of Congress. Trump does not have the power to sack civil servants who are not political appointments. They are protected by law. He is sacking them anyway.
I note that Musk's unlawful team of unvetted 'super hackers', one of whom is nineteen years old and rejoices in the name "Bigballs", don't seem to know how to use email. An email intended for one specific federal judge was set to every federal judge in the USA.
There is a grey blur, and a green blur. I try to stay on the grey one. - Joey Dunlop
The Majestic Metal Wizard
Yes, he does.
USAID - signed into existence by Executive Order under Kennedy.
The FBI - signed into existence by the AG.
OSS and the CIA - signed into existence by Roosevelt and Truman (respectively.
DEA - signed into existence by Nixon.
I could go on. Trump, as the head of the executive branch has wide ranging powers to create or close parts of the Executive branch of Government.
See above - Congress is the Legislature, their job is to write the laws. If those civil servants are part of the Executive Branch, then Trump does have certain powers as the elected head of the executive branch.
Given my experience - something tells me that Mr BigBalls did that deliberately.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
Well, this is awkward...
Except it didn't take me long to find this:
Now I can't vouch for the accuracy of the above (obviously), but it does ring somewhat true when it comes to anything involving government bureaucracy that it wouldn't be quite as simple as you're suggesting.Can the President Dissolve USAID Without An Act of Congress?
No, not lawfully. In 1961, USAID was created by an E.O. issued by President John F. Kennedy (E.O. 10973), based in part on authority provided in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. But a later act of Congress (The Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, 22 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.) established USAID as its own agency. In a section titled “Status of AID” (22 U.S.C. 6563) it states:
(a) In general
Unless abolished pursuant to the reorganization plan submitted under section 6601 of this title, and except as provided in section 6562 of this title, there is within the Executive branch of Government the United States Agency for International Development as an entity described in section 104 of title 5. (emphasis added)
The key language here is “there is within the Executive branch of Government [USAID]” (see sections 6562/6563). Those are the words Congress uses to establish an agency within the executive branch. It would take an act of Congress to reverse that – simply put, the president may not unilaterally override a statute by executive order.
etc etc
Moe: Well, I'm better than dirt. Well, most kinds of dirt. I mean not that fancy store bought dirt. That stuffs loaded with nutrients. I...I can't compete with that stuff.- The Simpsons
The Majestic Metal Wizard
Oh look, a Democrat complaining that Trump cant do things that hurt Democrat interests...
What I do find interesting, though, is that when I search for that bit of legislation and opinions on it that have been issued in the past Month- I see the article, I see a multiple re-posted news stories (of the same story) and a Reddit post that references that article - but I do not see any other discussion on it.
If the accuracy of the above was true, I would expect it to be much more publicized. I would expect to see discussion. The lack of such publicity and discussion makes me think that the argument being made is not as strong as they would lead you to believe.
Even in the Article itself - if the above excerpt was the Slam-Dunk implied, then why would they bolster the blog post with subsequent arguments about downsizing.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
Forum whore
Geriatric hoon
How it works is Congress votes on a matter. If approved, it then proceeds to the Senate who vote to confirm it - or not. If confirmed it goes to the president to sign off on it and he may - or may not - sign. So yes presidents signed off on new departments but only after they had been through the process. The president does not have the authority to start a new department. Congress control the government purse strings so that is their responsibility.
As someone else pointed out the US government consists of three co equal branches: the legislative branch (both houses of Congress), the Judiciary, and the executive branch (the president and the people he appoints). To use a Lord Of The Rings analogy, the president does not have the one ring to bind them all.
There is a grey blur, and a green blur. I try to stay on the grey one. - Joey Dunlop
The Majestic Metal Wizard
Except all those that were created by Executive Order, not by Congress.
You know, like the ones I pointed out.
Edit:
Here is a recent example:
Biden creating the Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships
Sec. 2. Establishment. There is established a White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships (White House Partnerships Office) within the Executive Office of the President,
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
Well, this is awkward...
Maybe the assumption is that Congress would rubber stamp the disestablishment anyway (given the Republicans', admittedly slim, majority), so it's more of a procedural hurdle than a complete roadblock.
Moe: Well, I'm better than dirt. Well, most kinds of dirt. I mean not that fancy store bought dirt. That stuffs loaded with nutrients. I...I can't compete with that stuff.- The Simpsons
The Majestic Metal Wizard
Possibly, I suspect that there is more here though.
My thoughts are that either the Democrats are keeping quiet for a Legal challenge...
or they are keeping quiet to avoid a Legal Challenge - as such a challenge would likely end up at the SC and given the ruling in Dobbs (removal of Roe) - I suspect the Dems are going to be cautious about having litigation heard by the SC.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
Geriatric hoon
If the situation requires urgency Congress can temporarily extend the required powerr to the president. That has not been done in the current situation. The president is acting unlawfully. Also trump and Musk have ignored court orders. If you or I ignored court orders we'd be in trouble, so should they but sadly that would be too much to expect. Musk's "engineers" could find well themselves behind bars at some point though.
There is a grey blur, and a green blur. I try to stay on the grey one. - Joey Dunlop
The Majestic Metal Wizard
What was the Urgency behind: The Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships?
I can find more examples of Biden creating Offices and Departments if youd like - And this isnt a dig at Biden - I am just pointing out that this is demonstrably incorrect.
The President has great powers within the executive branch, which includes creating Offices, Departments, Agencies etc.
Are you referring to this Court Order:
Let us take a look at the Judge in question - Hmmm on the board of Planned Parenthood, specializing in Environment Law - Gee, I wonder if he might have a particular Political View.Are there some aspects of the pause that might be legal and appropriate constitutionally for the Executive to take? The Court imagines there are, but it is equally sure that there are many instances in the Executive Orders’ wide-ranging, all-encompassing, and ambiguous ‘pause’ of critical funding that are not,
Now - onto this excerpt from the Ruling, because I find it interesting. The Court Imagines that some of Trumps actions are Legal and appropriate under the Constitution.
Right off the bat, we have a lovely shade of Grey - Trump might be doing something that is Legal.
The the next part, it is equally sure that some of the actions are not.
Imagine if a Judge said to a Defendant - Some of what you are doing might be legal, some of what you are doing might not be. What is an individual to make of that - the first would be to tell the court to go away and come back when they have determined what exactly they believe is not Legal, and why.
The lack of specificity and demarcation leads me to think this is simply a delay tactic.
Now - to be fair - assume for the moment that appropriate precedent or a brightline test had not been set - the Judge could point to a scenario and say that it is a matter of constitutional law and would need a SC ruling on the matter - The recent ruling around Machine Guns not being unusual in the US, for example, cites in the decision that there is a question of law that has not been resolved at the constitutional level and that other court decisions have side-stepped this issue.
I did not see that in the ruling.
In short - if the Judge cant point out exactly what it is that you are doing that is illegal and why, the ruling has little weight.
True, but neither you or I are the elected head of state. Not that it should matter, of course, but as above - looking at the decision - the Judge has failed to outline what IS legal (and they acknowledge that some of what is being done probably is) and what IS NOT legal.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
Forum whore
The Rapture.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks