Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

"Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies" – Executive Order

whitehouse.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

581–590 of 1001 posts

Re: "Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies" – Executive Order

#581

Post by spacechild1 »

arunabha wrote: post #503

In general, people are going to interpret this EO with their own lens. Unsurprisingly, reasonable people may disagree on the merits of the EO as a whole. However this part of the EO is pretty concerning > 'The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch' and later > 'No employee of the executive bra…

> setting up the president as the sole power center is an inherently unstable system

Only if there is a transition of power. If power stays in the same hands, the system can be very stable - and not in a good way.

Re: "Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies" – Executive Order

#582

Post by neilv »

Who is actually behind all these executive orders?

Do they all originate by the President saying "I want X" in reaction to something, and lawyers figuring out how to do X?

Do some of them originate with a wishlist of some extremist think tank or powerful people, and they finally found a President who'll rubberstamp them?

Other?

Re: "Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies" – Executive Order

#583

Post by svnt »

ceejayoz wrote: post #547
hiatus wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does any law or executive order say "unless invalidated by a court"? Isn't that kind of a given?

“John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” They are openly contesting the authority of the courts in various statements. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gx3j5k63xo.amp > Vice-President JD Vance has suggested judges do not have authority over the Trump administration's executive power, as the White House responds to a flurry of lawsuits that aim to stall its agenda. "Judges aren't allowed to co…

For those unfamiliar -- the quote is from Andrew Jackson, and his stance on the court's invalidation of the US state of Georgia's policies that led to the Trail of Tears.

Not a positive model to emulate.

AFAIK the only other time this has been done was during the US civil war.

Re: "Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies" – Executive Order

#584

Post by sterlind »

hiatus wrote: post #523
arunabha wrote: post #503

In general, people are going to interpret this EO with their own lens. Unsurprisingly, reasonable people may disagree on the merits of the EO as a whole. However this part of the EO is pretty concerning > 'The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch' and later > 'No employee of the executive bra…

I took it to mean that agencies no longer have the final say in interpretations of law when it comes to exercising executive power. So for instance if ATF says a banana is a machine gun and the president says "yes", then barring an act of Congress clarifying, it is. I don't see how you go from there to the end of judicial review?

If the Supreme Court rules against the Executive, they might order an agency to comply with a ruling or - barring that - hold an agency head in contempt. Under this EO, the agency wouldn't comply, since the agency would assume Trump's read of the law is correct - superceding even the Court's. If they tried to enforce a contempt order, the US Marshals would not comply either. Soldiers that swear allegiance to the Constitution would also have to defer to the President, even if the Supreme Court ordered the military not to obey an unconstitutional order.

The problem is the EO commands absolute subservience to the President's view of the Constitution, which makes it impossible for them to comply with Court orders.

Re: "Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies" – Executive Order

#585

Post by derbOac »

ceejayoz wrote: post #529
hiatus wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I took it to mean that agencies no longer have the final say in interpretations of law when it comes to exercising executive power. So for instance if ATF says a banana is a machine gun and the president says "yes", then barring an act of Congress clarifying, it is. I don't see how you go from there to the end of judicial review?

“No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law“ would seem to rule out, say, accepting a SCOTUS ruling against the President, should he insist it was wrongly decided.

They are trying to supercede the oath to the the constitution that people in the executive take, and also to supercede the authority of the other branches.

It's as simple as that.

Re: "Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies" – Executive Order

#586

Post by dizzant »

Vegenoid wrote: post #568
dizzant wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the second quote, the phrases "in their official capacity" and "as the position of the United States" are doing a lot of heavy lifting. The EO is going out of its way to broadcast that its purpose is to establish a unitary policy position of the executive branch that stems from the President, rather than having "independent" agencies providing contrary position from within "in their official capacity" "as the posi…

> The disincentives that have always prevented the executive from blatantly violating the law are still in force and unchanged. They have been functional through 250 years of Presidents testing the limits of their authority. Can you elaborate on what those disincentives are? I am thinking: - Impeachment - Charged with a crime, found guilty, sent to jail. It seems like this one is no longer possible due to Trump v. Un…

I'm no legal scholar, but sure, I'll elaborate as a layman.

During the Presidency, impeachment and judicial review are the important checks. During the transition of power, state-controlled (as in, not federally controlled) elections and Congressional certification are the important checks.

While many people are disappointed with Congress' hesitation to impeach, impeachment as an institutional protection still works as a protection against blatant disregard of the law. Congress faces the threat of re-election practically constantly, and obvious disregard of the law without impeachment is not in Congress' best interest.

Judicial review is clearly working. I don't need to recap the large number of cases that have be brought against the Trump administration this term. The administration is abiding by stays/injunctions, and the Courts are issuing opinions independently. The Supreme Court, even Trump-appointed Justices, has ruled against Trump before and will likely do it again.

State-level control of Presidential elections and Congressional accountability to the public during certification protect against the spectre of a third Trump term or end of democracy. This scenario is extremely unpopular even among Trump supporters and would be a disaster for those in Congress.

The recent Supreme Court opinion about Presidential immunity in his official capacity explicitly defers and leaves to the lower Courts to determine the precise limits of that official capacity. It is beyond belief that the entire judicial branch would collectively enable dictatorship "bEcAuSe iMmUnItY".

Re: "Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies" – Executive Order

#587

Post by Vegenoid »

nailer wrote: post #391
apexalpha wrote: post #88

>A White House Liaison is to be installed in every independent regulatory agency to enforce direct presidential control Wow. Literally installing political officers in agencies.

My understanding is that politicians are elected whereas bureaucrats are not.

I don't see the point you are making? It isn't politicians that are getting elected to be White House Liaisons, they will almost certainly be appointed.

Re: "Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies" – Executive Order

#588

Post by dizzant »

ceejayoz wrote: post #555
dizzant wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the second quote, the phrases "in their official capacity" and "as the position of the United States" are doing a lot of heavy lifting. The EO is going out of its way to broadcast that its purpose is to establish a unitary policy position of the executive branch that stems from the President, rather than having "independent" agencies providing contrary position from within "in their official capacity" "as the posi…

> The disincentives that have always prevented the executive from blatantly violating the law are still in force and unchanged. We’re just gonna pretend Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024) doesn’t exist, are we?

That opinion specifically defers to lower courts to define the precise limits of the President's immunity. I refuse to believe that the collective effort of the judicial branch would construct those limits in a manner that enables dictatorship.

Re: "Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies" – Executive Order

#589

Post by procaryote »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #579
procaryote wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds pretty obviously unconstitutional. I don't see how a reasonable person could disagree actually. The whole point of the checks and balances is to prevent this.

Ok, so how would those checks and balances work if the president refuses to obey the courts? Who's going to enforce those court orders? I suppose you could say that the congress could impeach - but what if the majority of the House sides with the president? And if the House does manage to pass impeachment, it still takes 2/3 of Senators to convict - as we've seen that's a very high bar and very unlikely to happen. Bu…

I never said the checks and balances are working well... but the constitutional checks and balances not working well is a lesser problem than the executive branch just deciding that the president is also able to do the judiciary's job

It should be the trigger for country wide protests until the president is overthrown. It won't be of course. But it should.

Re: "Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies" – Executive Order

#590

Post by wnoise »

avalys wrote: post #491
vharuck wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider this hypothetical: a federal judge rules against the Trump administration's firing of the inspectors general and must offer the fired employees their positions back. The Attorney General says the judge overstepped his constitutional power and calls the ruling invalid. What should the person who would've rehired the employees do? Continue that hypothetical further: the case makes its way to the Supreme Court,…

What’s the solution you have in mind? Anyone in the Executive branch can interpret the law for themselves and disobey an order if they believe they have a legal basis to do so? That would be completely paralyzing.

Yes.

It would be completely paralyzing were the executive largely staffed with those that wanted to paralyze it. Usually that's not the case.

I don't think that'd be case unless the orders were completely outrageous, in which case, yes, we absolutely want them disobeyed until adjudication could happen.

Post reply on HN