[dead]
DOGE employees ordered to stop using Slack
281–290 of 413 posts
Re: DOGE employees ordered to stop using Slack
#282DOGE 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.
[dead]
Re: DOGE employees ordered to stop using Slack
#283Earlier 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]
The more polite term is "sealioning."
Re: DOGE employees ordered to stop using Slack
#284Earlier quoted context omitted.
> DOGE is obviously a completely illegal operation Could you share you reasons. From what I gather, the EO[1] does a few things to avoid potential law suits: - It revised the purpose of an existing agency, USDS. The general purpose is not changed: "Modernizing Federal Technology and Software to Maximize Efficiency and Productivity". This avoids the issue of creating a new agency without the approval from Congress. -…
And a curious question: I was seeking the truth on the qualifier "obvious" and the legality of the EO in general, and I presented my case with references to the actual EO. My reasoning could be very wrong but at least I tried to stick with the discussion of the actual legality of the EO. What's your reason to flag it and downvote it without counter arguments? Anything that does not agree with your rage is automatical…
I believe that the existence of DOGE and the EO is legal. I don't believe that what they are actually doing (according to reports) is legal. I believe they are doing illegal things based upon Musk's own tweets, however, I do actually hope he is just trolling and it's not actually happening as he says it is.
That said, even if it's just trolling, trolling has no place in government. We all deserve better and we need to trust that what is said is the truth.
Re: DOGE employees ordered to stop using Slack
#285Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Can Congress constitutionally force the President to spend money the President doesn’t want to spend? Congress holds the power of the purse, so they aren't "forcing" the President, the President has no say in the matter
Almost every President until Nixon claimed the constitutional right to impound appropriations, and actually did it. And Congress often objected, but what could they do? Until Nixon did it so much, that Congress passed a law against it. And Nixon decided to sign the law, because he wanted to put the controversy over his own impoundments behind him. And from then until now, even if some Presidents questioned the consti…
From first principles, congress is given power of the purse. If the president can just ignore congress' direction and refuse to use the money they allocated, do you believe that congress still has power of the purse?
Re: DOGE employees ordered to stop using Slack
#286This has nothing to do with FOIA, the article just made up that explanation for engagement.
Re: DOGE employees ordered to stop using Slack
#287Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is a good question. Hopefully we get an answer before we are all bankrupt. No idea why the markets aren't in freefall at this point.
I'm skeptical that billionaires will tank the very thing from which all their wealth is derived, at least not long term. We will continue to see tremendous short term volatility.
> at least not long term.
But this is the very thing. In every single financial crisis, the uber wealthy accumulate even more at the expense of everyone else that is loosing everything.
Re: DOGE employees ordered to stop using Slack
#288Practically, this probably doesn't make a difference. FOIA relies on at least one person in the department to not be antagonistic towards the process. Otherwise they can just make up excuses. That's the standard experience for people sending requests. I don't think anyone from the new DOGE would actually be helpful in responses anyway.
If the data is on Slack servers, then Slack may be more than willing comply with FOIA.
FOIA requests go to the information owner, not to anyone hosting it. It's not even specific to IT. Paper notes/documents are also covered.
Re: DOGE employees ordered to stop using Slack
#289Earlier quoted context omitted.
Almost every President until Nixon claimed the constitutional right to impound appropriations, and actually did it. And Congress often objected, but what could they do? Until Nixon did it so much, that Congress passed a law against it. And Nixon decided to sign the law, because he wanted to put the controversy over his own impoundments behind him. And from then until now, even if some Presidents questioned the consti…
From first principles, congress is given power of the purse. If the president can just ignore congress' direction and refuse to use the money they allocated, do you believe that congress still has power of the purse?
From first principles, the American Founding Fathers were largely copying the design of the British system (as they understood it), but with an elected President replacing the King. In the British system, Parliament could stop the King from spending money – but the power was about stopping the King from spending as he liked, not forcing him to spend when he didn't wish to. The English Civil War was fought over the principle that the King couldn't spend money without Parliament's authorisation; the issue of Parliament trying to force the King to spend money when he didn't want to spend it simply never came up.
Hence, look at the Appropriations Clause of the US Constitution (Article I Section 9 Clause 7): "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law..." That's a negative clause, a prohibition on the Executive spending money without legal authorisation; nowhere does it explicitly say that Congress can force the President to spend money when he doesn't want to spend it.
For most of the term's history, "the power of the purse" was understood as the ability of the legislature to limit government spending; the idea that it also entails the ability of the legislature to compel the executive to spend money which it doesn't wish to spend is much newer.
Re: DOGE employees ordered to stop using Slack
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
And a curious question: I was seeking the truth on the qualifier "obvious" and the legality of the EO in general, and I presented my case with references to the actual EO. My reasoning could be very wrong but at least I tried to stick with the discussion of the actual legality of the EO. What's your reason to flag it and downvote it without counter arguments? Anything that does not agree with your rage is automatical…
I believe that the existence of DOGE and the EO is legal. I don't believe that what they are actually doing (according to reports) is legal. I believe they are doing illegal things based upon Musk's own tweets, however, I do actually hope he is just trolling and it's not actually happening as he says it is. That said, even if it's just trolling, trolling has no place in government. We all deserve better and we need t…
So what "trolling" are you referring to?