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

651–660 of 1001 posts

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

#651

Post by timoth3y »

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…

Even with a highly sympathetic Supreme Court it is hard to imagine this EO standing.

It goes against the foundation of not only US law, but couple of hundred years of international democratic tradition in which allegiance is not to a person, but to the nation itself.

US civil servants and military alike swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution not the president or their commander. Illegal orders are not only expected, but required to be disobeyed.

This EO eliminates the concept of an illegal order since the law would be whatever the executive interprets it to be.

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

#652

Post by cowsaymoo »

giantg2 wrote: post #611
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…

'The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch' That's basically what EOs are already.

Yes it is trivial for the scope of presidential interpretation to extend over the executive branch. And this excerpt posits nothing about the oversight authority of other branches.

The more interesting phrase is about the AG. While the AG is already constitutionally understood to serve at the president's pleasure, this EO curtails any informal independence that the AG is afforded from past norms.

So I suppose it's declaring that AGs under a Trump administration shall serve as rubber stamps with no independent authority to interpret the law, granted via his claimed constitutional supremacy over the executive branch.

Perhaps it is a edict to AGs who've resisted orders from the President recently, to notice them that job title is the most supreme form of legal analysis in this executive branch. IANAL

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

#653

Post by nailer »

Vegenoid wrote: post #587
nailer wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The will of the people is better reflected by people appointed by their elected representatives than by bureaucrats.

I am very confident that you probably do understand that.

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

#654

Post by HideousKojima »

handoflixue wrote: post #626
galleywest200 wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Naive interpretations like this one, of bad faith actions is how we get there. Instead of just dismissing things out of hand like this, maybe you could provide a "less naive" interpretation? Your statement is not helpful either.

Fundamentally, an EO says "we urgently need to course correct and do X", which only makes sense if you agree that X is not already being done. So this EO is not just declaring "the Executive Branch will obey me", but also saying "the Executive Branch has been so disobedient that I need to take immediate action to quash that" If you are saying that latter sentence, you should be able to justify it by pointing at the d…

>So this EO is not just declaring "the Executive Branch will obey me", but also saying "the Executive Branch has been so disobedient that I need to take immediate action to quash that"

I mean, bureaucrats literally lied to Trump in his first term about troop numbers in Syria so that he wouldn't take action to pull them out (and then bragged about it after Biden got in): https://taskandpurpose.com/news/us-troop-levels-syria-jeffre...

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

#655

Post by dclowd9901 »

timoth3y wrote: post #651
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…

Even with a highly sympathetic Supreme Court it is hard to imagine this EO standing. It goes against the foundation of not only US law, but couple of hundred years of international democratic tradition in which allegiance is not to a person, but to the nation itself. US civil servants and military alike swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution not the president or their commander. Illegal orders are not o…

If the Supreme Court and Congress has no enforcement power, though, what recourse is there?

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

#656

Post by timoth3y »

adamsb6 wrote: post #622
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.

The employees of the executive branch are not intended to be a check on the executive branch's powers. They are the agents of the executive. The legislative and judicial branches are the checks to executive power.

> The employees of the executive branch are not intended to be a check on the executive branch's powers.

That's not entirely correct. All civil servants and military swear an oath the Constitution and are required to disobey illegal orders. This EO attempts to largely eliminate the concept of illegal orders.

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

#657

Post by croemer »

skippyboxedhero wrote: post #337
dkobia wrote: post #128

This new administration lays bare what we've known all along - the legislative gridlock and dysfunction in the house of representatives and senate has made them completely incapable of governing -- the least productive in a generation. This is opened up an opportunity for a well funded strongman, and the checks and balances that were intended to protect our democracy are now mere suggestions.

It is telling that you have that interpretation of executive power but not the same of regulatory power. As proof, this isn't an American problem, it is nothing to do with the US constitution or "gridlock". In most English-speaking countries you have seen: massive increase in power by unelected officials, the vast majority of these officials have identical political views and operate with a political agenda (to be cl…

> imagine if Hitler fired civil servants

He did. It's called "Gleichschaltung", we learned about it in school. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zgtyvcw/revision/4

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

#658

Post by dclowd9901 »

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?

He took it that way because without a charitable interpretation such as yours, the wording leaves power assigned vaguely enough end run judicial review. Given this administration's history with attempts to grab power, I'd say your interpretation is _far_ too charitable.

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

#659

Post by matthewmcg »

khazhoux wrote: post #636
svnt wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Naive interpretations like this one, of bad faith actions is how we get there. This same assumption of good faith was wholly present in peoples' responses to project 2025 prior to the election. They are not acting in good faith. Try restating the problem: Why is this EO being issued? What problem, other than judicial review, does it solve for the executive branch? EDIT: For those who do not think this contributes any…

> Why is this EO being issued? What problem, other than judicial review, does it solve for the executive branch? It is saying that for all matters where a law is not explicit and prescriptive, the WH shall provide the interpretation for the agency to follow. The WH is correct that (aside from judicial review, which is not at issue here) they have final authority over how to implement open-ended laws, and not the agen…

What about the constitutional directive that the President shall ensure that the laws are faithfully executed? Congress has prescribed how agencies may issue regulations and interpretations through statutes shouldn’t these statutes control?

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

#660

Post by dclowd9901 »

hiatus wrote: post #531
ceejayoz wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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.

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

[flagged]
Post reply on HN