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

751–760 of 1001 posts

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

#751

Post by ExoticPearTree »

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…

>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 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'

In the corporate world, when you’re unsure about something legal, you go to your in-house counsel and ask how to interpret the law, you don’t decide for you or the whole company. Same thing is happening here: if in doubt, speak to the AG.

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

#752

Post by chii »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #701
dclowd9901 wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Congress has all the enforcement power, they can impeach the president whenever they want. Will they? I don't know, he's already gone so far in constitutional overreach that he's making Nixon blush. Judiciary has more power than you'd think too. It's just that they try to act in good faith and generally do not want to throw people into civil contempt that often. The SCOTUS can even re-re-interpret the presidential im…

> Will they do this?

so the question is why?

The point about what they're legally allowed to do, and could do, is moot, if there's no will.

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

#753

Post by unethical_ban »

grandempire wrote: post #702
unethical_ban wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But our government doesn’t have independent branches. Yes, it does, by the nature of them existing and Congress establishing them. Show me where in the Constitution that they can't do that.

Powers are enumerated in the constitution. So it’s not a question of what the constitution says they can’t do. It would be strange if congress can designate untouchable officials. Why don’t they just grant themselves office for life?

>To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

So yes, Congress has wide leeway to create agencies to administer particular executions of laws passed by Congress and signed by the President.

Furthermore, we don't have untouchable officials. What does that hypothetical have to do with anything?

The heads of these agencies that Trump is removing are protected from being fired immediately, fired without Congressional notification, and from being fired without cause.

Rank-and-file civil servants are protected from being fired unrelated to performance precisely so we don't revert to the patronage systems of the 1800s.

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

#754

Post by lmm »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #711
jtc331 wrote: post #694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What problem, other than judicial review, does it solve for the executive branch? It’s fairly obvious on its face the concern of the EO is not judicial review but about agencies that nominally are past of the branch the President heads determining interpretations of law contrary to what the head of the executive desires. And, it does genuinely seem weird to have an executive branch where the head of that branch doe…

> ...heads determining interpretations of law contrary to what the head of the executive desires. Is the head of the executive an expert in all things? And capable of communicating those expert desires with perfect clarity? Why have courts if the executive head can sort out all legal nuance themselves?

> Is the head of the executive an expert in all things? And capable of communicating those expert desires with perfect clarity?

It's not their job to be the expert, it's their job to be the decisionmaker. That's why you have a head. If two federal agencies want to interpret the law differently, it's more important to pick one interpretation and apply it consistently than to get it perfectly right.

> Why have courts if the executive head can sort out all legal nuance themselves?

Checks and balances are important but so is the ability to actually do things occasionally. Independence for the court system is good. Independence for every individual federal agency isn't.

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

#755

Post by gottorf »

georgemcbay wrote: post #712
doctorpangloss wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. Dude. I don’t like the outcome, but he has “extra” powers because Republicans won a lot of elections and are a majority in all three branches of government and in many statehouses.

> Republicans won a lot of elections A lot of them thanks to the results of blatant gerrymandering.

My candidate winning reflects the legitimate will of the people, and your candidate winning is solely due to gerrymandering. Of course.

Both parties[0][1] in fact do engage in gerrymandering.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27s_4th_congressional...

[1]: https://thefulcrum.us/electoral-reforms/worst-gerrymandered-...

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

#756

Post by chii »

kbrkbr wrote: post #293
pjmlp wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most dictorships started by the people in power streamlining decadent processes and burocracy, by putting into place the new regulations that would improve everything. Until a couple years later on average, a state protection organism gets put in place to check those organisations are working as expected. Eventually, the state protection organism gets a bit carried away on what they are supposed to be checking on.

I don't think so. "Nearly half of dictatorships start as a military coup, though others have been started by foreign intervention, elected officials ending competitive elections, insurgent takeovers, popular uprisings by citizens, or legal maneuvering by autocratic elites to take power within their government. Between 1946 and 2010, 42% of dictatorships began by overthrowing a different dictatorship, and 26% began af…

> Nearly half of dictatorships start as a military coup

do you see jan 16 as a military coup? Coz i do. Just because the people involved are poorly equipped, and badly organized, doesn't mean it isn't.

We, as a nation, did not punish them hard enough. We as a nation, did not cut the hydra at their head, and allowed it to fester. It is done, perhaps, as a form of peace keeping and appeasement.

But history has taught us that appeasement does not work. So once again, those who failed to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

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

#757

Post by honkycat »

jaybrendansmith wrote: post #11

As Americans that believe in the Republic, what exactly are we supposed to do about this? Should we continue to implore congress to take action against this lawless behavior?

It is winter, come springtime the protests will be huge

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

#758

Post by lmm »

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.

A court ruling isn't a matter of law - you can say the ruling was issued wrongly, and you may even be right, but you still have to follow it.

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

#759

Post by brightball »

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…

Ultimately, I expect this to be taken to the Supreme Court and reigned in.

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

#760

Post by chii »

bagels wrote: post #376
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.

I'd rather have gridlock than Hitler.

Hitler was popular before he became famous as "hitler".
Post reply on HN