DOGE employees ordered to stop using Slack • Hacker News Board

Re: DOGE employees ordered to stop using Slack

#271

Post by rawgabbit » Thu, Feb 06, 2025, 1:54 AM UTC

dmitrygr wrote: post #138

code_runner wrote: post #41

DOGE is obviously a completely illegal operation, and I really do hope it will be get reined in before they can cause an issue so big that _even trump's croniest cronies_ have to admit what is going on. For someone who claims to love freedom of speech, Elon is pretty quick to determine who can say what, and how much access to _his_ data people have.

No personal option stated or implied, but: exactly this was clearly promised before the election, and it is being delivered right now. The people voted for this: a majority of the American people. Democracy, no?

The US believes in the rule of law. That means those in power cannot ignore rules and operational procedures put in place to prevent abuse of power.

What you are saying is Trump won so he can effectively shut down agencies and create new ones by fiat. And if those new agencies break laws that is fine.

As a hypothetical, suppose DOGE amasses a large dataset of every resident in the US and it then identifies “illegals” and instructs the deputized military to deport this group of people to prison in El Salvador via secret messaging beyond FOIA reach. This is not OK. Especially if the deported were not given due process to defend themselves in court. What if a few of the deported were actual citizens and had their identities mixed up with someone else.

Re: DOGE employees ordered to stop using Slack

#272

Post by jrs235 » Thu, Feb 06, 2025, 2:10 AM UTC

quickthrowman wrote: post #162

skissane wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It is not debateable at all, the President has to ask Congress to rescind appropriated funds if the President doesn’t want to spend the money allocated by Congress. If Congress chooses not to rescind the allocated funds, then the president must spend the money. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974 is explicitly clear about this, there is absolutely no room for debate. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/C…

>It is not debateable at all, the President has to ask Congress to rescind appropriated funds if the President doesn’t want to spend the money allocated by Congress. If Congress chooses not to rescind the allocated funds, then the president must spend the money.

What people don't understand is that the President is essentially an Administrator (Executer of the laws passed by Congress), not a Decider.

The problem now is that Congress will not impeach or convict him for breaking the law.

Re: DOGE employees ordered to stop using Slack

#273

Post by code_runner » Thu, Feb 06, 2025, 2:11 AM UTC

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #109

pohl wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say yes, insofar as the text and SCOTUS interpretations of the constitution count as law, so anything that violates, for example, the separation of powers would be illegal.

But hasn't the SCOTUS also ruled that anything the President does as a part of his duties legal? Where does that ruling actually end?

I believe that’s for criminal prosecution and probably has a lot of room for additional precedents to be set

Re: DOGE employees ordered to stop using Slack

#274

Post by ty6853 » Thu, Feb 06, 2025, 2:15 AM UTC

llamaimperative wrote: post #270

ty6853 wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's going on today with doge is what exactly? They're accessing payment systems, as advertised openly in a democratic election. You want analogies of a scrutinizing funding and then viciously calling for its retraction? Because pretty much all colors and creeds have done that.

Going line by line through payments to look for things that look politically affiliated with the opposing side’s viewpoints with the stated goal of ending those payments? Please show me an analog.

[flagged]

Re: DOGE employees ordered to stop using Slack

#275

Post by llamaimperative » Thu, Feb 06, 2025, 2:19 AM UTC

ty6853 wrote: post #274

llamaimperative wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going line by line through payments to look for things that look politically affiliated with the opposing side’s viewpoints with the stated goal of ending those payments? Please show me an analog.

[flagged]

No I frankly have never heard of anything like this, and it doesn't appear the dozens of federal budget experts, Constitutional law experts, political historians, or policy legal analysts I follow closely have heard of anything similar either.

I don't think anyone at any location on the political spectrum would describe what's going on right now as "business as usual," but apparently you believe that's the case. So please share evidence. Definitionally, it should be abundant.

Re: DOGE employees ordered to stop using Slack

#276

Post by swat535 » Thu, Feb 06, 2025, 2:23 AM UTC

code_runner wrote: post #41

DOGE is obviously a completely illegal operation, and I really do hope it will be get reined in before they can cause an issue so big that _even trump's croniest cronies_ have to admit what is going on. For someone who claims to love freedom of speech, Elon is pretty quick to determine who can say what, and how much access to _his_ data people have.

> DOGE is obviously a completely illegal operation,

Which law(s) are they breaking? Please cite them specifically.

I'm genuinely asking because you are making a very assertive statement.

Re: DOGE employees ordered to stop using Slack

#277

Post by courseofaction » Thu, Feb 06, 2025, 3:12 AM UTC

ty6853 wrote: post #274

llamaimperative wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going line by line through payments to look for things that look politically affiliated with the opposing side’s viewpoints with the stated goal of ending those payments? Please show me an analog.

[flagged]

Sounds like you don't have an argument or analogy and are going for ad hominem and deflection instead.

Re: DOGE employees ordered to stop using Slack

#278

Post by senectus1 » Thu, Feb 06, 2025, 3:51 AM UTC

swat535 wrote: post #276

code_runner wrote: post #41

DOGE is obviously a completely illegal operation, and I really do hope it will be get reined in before they can cause an issue so big that _even trump's croniest cronies_ have to admit what is going on. For someone who claims to love freedom of speech, Elon is pretty quick to determine who can say what, and how much access to _his_ data people have.

> DOGE is obviously a completely illegal operation, Which law(s) are they breaking? Please cite them specifically. I'm genuinely asking because you are making a very assertive statement.

state based information privacy laws would be my first go to.

Re: DOGE employees ordered to stop using Slack

#279

Post by ty6853 » Thu, Feb 06, 2025, 3:54 AM UTC

llamaimperative wrote: post #275

ty6853 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

No I frankly have never heard of anything like this, and it doesn't appear the dozens of federal budget experts, Constitutional law experts, political historians, or policy legal analysts I follow closely have heard of anything similar either. I don't think anyone at any location on the political spectrum would describe what's going on right now as "business as usual," but apparently you believe that's the case. So p…

[flagged]

Re: DOGE employees ordered to stop using Slack

#280

Post by ty6853 » Thu, Feb 06, 2025, 3:57 AM UTC

courseofaction wrote: post #277

ty6853 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Sounds like you don't have an argument or analogy and are going for ad hominem and deflection instead.

The argument 'but the right dismantling the shadow left, and the left dismantling the shadow right hopefully provides some balance' is merely a symmetric balance principle.

The person pretending to ask questions used an underhanded socratic method to assert what was happening about line-by-line and then demanded analog for their own premise as if it were mine instead of theirs. Youve fallen for a trick.