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

831–840 of 1001 posts

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

#831

Post by dragonwriter »

refurb wrote: post #729
dragonwriter wrote: post #699

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "these subordinates must still execute based on the President's interpretation, not their own". Yes, this is a problem, because it would mean that if the President (for simplicity, the order also specified the AG, but it doesn't really change the issue) had an opinion on the law, and the courts issued an order to an executive officer such as a department head in a lawsuit contrary to that interpretation, the depart…

> the department head would remain bound by the Presidential interpretation until the President relented I don't know what you mean by "bound"? The President, EOs and the exective branch are not immune from court decisions. If a court rules again an EO, the President would need to abide by that court decision. As per this EO, the department head would do what the President wanted (align to the court order), and would…

> Who would they be accountable to if not the US President?

Accountability does not require absolute control. A subordinate official can be permitted (even mandated) to exercise independent judgement and still be accountable for mis-, mal-, and nonfeasance to a higher authority.

And this has, with different precise parameters, long been the statutory model governing the President’s relations with much of the executive branch, with different specific rules applicable to civil service employees generally, Inspectors-General and a few other specially-designated employees in regular departments, and independent agencies.

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

#832

Post by kelnos »

refurb wrote: post #689
timoth3y wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This EO eliminates the concept of an illegal order since the law would be whatever the executive interprets it to be. How do you come to that to conclusion, especially in the context of the EO? This EO doesn't change the Constitution's requirement that the President "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". I'm not a lawyer but I would interpret this EO to say "it is the job of the President to execute the la…

> This EO doesn't change the fact that President is held accountable by the judicial branch for following the law.

That's the big question, though, isn't it? Will current SCOTUS actually pass down rulings based on the law and constitutionality, or will they defer to Trump on many/most/all things?

And if they pass down a ruling that Trump doesn't like, will he obey the court? Or will he just instruct his people to ignore it? Federal courts and SCOTUS don't really have much or anything in the way of enforcement power, if the executive branch wants to ignore them.

The only real backstop to this is Congress' power to impeach. Which won't happen. And even if it did, would Trump actually leave office? And if he didn't, who would have the ability and willingness to step in and force him to leave?

If the answer to all this is "the military", whoooo boy, are we in trouble. And even that assumes all the military leadership hasn't been retired by then, with Trump loyalists installed in their place.

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

#833

Post by kelnos »

lmm wrote: post #746
dragonwriter wrote: post #699

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "these subordinates must still execute based on the President's interpretation, not their own". Yes, this is a problem, because it would mean that if the President (for simplicity, the order also specified the AG, but it doesn't really change the issue) had an opinion on the law, and the courts issued an order to an executive officer such as a department head in a lawsuit contrary to that interpretation, the depart…

> Yes, this is a problem, because it would mean that if the President (for simplicity, the order also specified the AG, but it doesn't really change the issue) had an opinion on the law, and the courts issued an order to an executive officer such as a department head in a lawsuit contrary to that interpretation, the department head would remain bound by the Presidential interpretation until the President relented, si…

But who will enforce a court order if the executive branch decided to ignore it?

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

#834

Post by kelnos »

refurb wrote: post #729
dragonwriter wrote: post #699

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "these subordinates must still execute based on the President's interpretation, not their own". Yes, this is a problem, because it would mean that if the President (for simplicity, the order also specified the AG, but it doesn't really change the issue) had an opinion on the law, and the courts issued an order to an executive officer such as a department head in a lawsuit contrary to that interpretation, the depart…

> the department head would remain bound by the Presidential interpretation until the President relented I don't know what you mean by "bound"? The President, EOs and the exective branch are not immune from court decisions. If a court rules again an EO, the President would need to abide by that court decision. As per this EO, the department head would do what the President wanted (align to the court order), and would…

> The President, EOs and the exective branch are not immune from court decisions.

Sure they are, if they want to be. Federal courts don't have their own enforcement arm. Even if they find specific officials in contempt of court, and order them arrested, Trump can simply order the US Marshals service to just... not arrest them.

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

#835

Post by IAmGraydon »

proggy wrote: post #817
yesiamyourdad wrote: post #782

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that the most effective way to get change would be if the economy tanked, that's the one thing the electorate seems to be motivated by. A general strike would be one way to do that, but I doubt that one could be organized on any meaningful scale. I'd love to be wrong about that. I'm trying to restrict my spending as much as possible. No new car, no vacation (or at least nothing big), limiting eating out, etc.…

I’m gonna be straight with you. I used to think this way — that living small was a form of protest against the ills of society. But life is too short. For many of us, that cardiac arrest, car accident, or pandemic-related terminal illness is right around the corner. Don’t say no to things that bring meaning, joy, purpose, and expansion to your life. You only have one life to live.

I think he’s talking about weathering an economic disaster, not a life philosophy.

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

#836

Post by refurb »

timoth3y wrote: post #812
refurb wrote: post #803

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Saying that a President’s personal interpretation of Congress’ laws or the courts precedence, completely overrides any individual executive employees good faith understanding and responsibility to the Constitution, laws, and judicial rulings is madness. But it's not madness based on the intended structure of government? The EO isn't saying "ignore Constitutional violations". It wouldn't be valid if it did. If Congr…

> The executive branch of government is more accurately viewed as a monolithic organization which derives 100% of it's authority by delegation from the US President That is inaccurate. Almost all federal departments and agencies derive their authority from acts of Congress. The President has very limited authority to create and empower agencies. The strongest argument against the CFPB is that is was not created by an…

> Almost all federal departments and agencies derive their authority from acts of Congress.

Partially, as we need to be precise in our language.

Congress can design an agency, determine what powers it has, determine agency procedures and fund agencies.

It's up to the President to execute the law within those boundaries, including selecting the head of that agency (with Senate approval), and determining how the agency executes the law which can be incredibly broad if Congress wasn't proscriptive.

Thus the authority to execute the laws is delegated to the President by the Constitution who then delegates that power to the head of the agency which acts on the Presidents behalf.

More broadly, the Supreme Court has made clear that the Constitution imposes important limits on Congress’s ability to influence or control the actions of officers once they are appointed. Likewise, it is widely believed that the President must retain a certain amount of independent discretion in selecting officers that Congress may not impede. These principles ensure that the President may fulfill his constitutional duty under Article II to take [c]are that the laws are faithfully executed.9

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3...

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

#837

Post by tsimionescu »

throw0101c wrote: post #719
dclowd9901 wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> If the Supreme Court and Congress has no enforcement power, though, what recourse is there? While maybe not practical for the president, but at least for various cabinet Secretaries or Directors: if they do not follow court-issued orders could be found in contempt and jailed until the corrective orders are implemented?

Trump's new doctrine is that all employees of the executive branch, such as federal police, must take his interpretation of the law as correct. So if a court ordered that the Secretary of State be jailed, Trump can issue a memo saying "the Executive Branch interprets this legal decision as meaning that the Secretary of State should not be jailed", then any federal police officer or agency head has to comply with the official interpretation of the president or be fired.

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

#838

Post by kelnos »

apple4ever wrote: post #773
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. But that is what the Constitution specifies (Article II Section 1): > The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. I find it funny people either don't know this or are intentionally ignoring it. The entire power is vested in one person, who can delegate the enforcement of it to lower officers. >…

No, that's not what it says. The part you quoted says that executive power is vested in the president. Legislative and judicial power are vested in other bodies that are not accountable to the president.

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

#839

Post by johnnyanmac »

fjjjrjj wrote: post #405
globnomulous wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am independent and not a Democrat or a Republican because they are two sides of the same coin. The only sense in which this is true: the GOP are fascist, racist authoritarians who have waged a decades-long war on the middle and lower class; the Democrats aren't. If you think the Democrats and GOP are equally bad, you're out of your mind.

I don't think they are equally bad. GOP are rotten to the core. I don't understand why a new party has not formed to leave the batshit crazies behind.

Game theory. It askss a fundamental choice on if you'd rather lose to democrats for the next decade miniumum while you split or ride out the Trump wave.

But in the same regards, Democrats have a similar struggle. It's clear trust is also very low right now within the party and that some people would rather have a party more focused on socialists causes a la Bernie. But is that worth risking a blue wave through the 20's and part of the 30's ?

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

#840

Post by etc-hosts »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #769
dwaltrip wrote: post #661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Protest and revolt. Government for the people and by the people

A majority of Americans voted for Trump. There was a pollster who was on CNN a day or two ago who looked into people who voted for Clinton and Biden in 2016 and 2020, but then for Trump in 2024. These people were (of course generally speaking) happy with Trump's performace so far this term. There frustration with the Democrats was what they perceived as a lack of action, and they see Trump as "moving fast". It's clea…

I wish Trump wasn't able to act like he has a huge massive sea change mandate, when he only won by 1%
Post reply on HN