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

861–870 of 1001 posts

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

#861

Post by UncleOxidant »

doctor_radium wrote: post #599
UncleOxidant wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If it comes to it, the military.

Which is why they're hinting that generals are going to be fired next week. Likely so they can replace them with loyalists.

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

#862

Post by dang »

concordDance wrote: post #468
dang wrote: post #298

There's a bit of background at https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5152723-donald-t... . If there are better third-party reports, let me know and I'll add to this list. The above is just the first one bestowed by Google.

Honestly dang, I'm seeing mostly not thoughtful substantive commentary here, just ideological battling. Which is a shame because this is certainly a topic it's possible to do that on (e.g. this comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43105417 ). Are the good comments really worth the large amount of heat?

In this case I think the answer is probably yes, it's worth it. This thread turned out to be better than the median for political threads these days, which of course is a low bar. (I agree with you that https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43103830 is the opposite of what we want here).

HN is split between users who passionately want more political discussion and users who don't want HN to be overrun with politics (or flamewars). The former are more vocal but the latter are more numerous. (How do I know that? Because if it weren't the case, i.e. if the majority of HN wanted all these political threads on the front page, the pressure to do this would be far greater than it is, intense though it has been.)

The community is always split between readers who feel like "all stories on $Topic are being suppressed, this site is censored!" and readers who feel like "Hacker News is overrun with $Topic! This site should change its name to $Topic News!". How to balance out these conflicting vectors is an interesting optimization problem. I say interesting because the obvious solutions don't work. For example, some people feel like the moderators should just declare politics off-topic on HN—but that would actually politicize the site even more (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25785637).

Fortunately we worked out a strategy that has held up well over the years. Here are a couple recent posts that cover it:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42614703

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42978389

... and there's lots more at https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so....

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

#863

Post by lynndotpy »

Zamaamiro wrote: post #258

This EO, combined with his proclamation that "He who saves the country does not violate any law" paint a very concerning picture. This has, historically speaking, been the language of tyrants. No President is above the law, nor does the President "interpret" the law; that is the domain of the Judiciary. “Wherever law ends, tyranny begins”

> No President is above the law, nor does the President "interpret" the law

On paper, but not in practice, sadly.

The meaning of the Constitution has been bent to serve Trump's will. He violated the law constantly during his first term, was not held accountable for the electoral violations or coup, and is now violating the law again. He's gotten away with it every single time.

I'm sorry to say this. You are describing an America that no longer exists. We live in a new country with new rules that we don't quite understand yet.

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

#864

Post by wyldfire »

fach wrote: post #686
sejje wrote: post #663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This EO eliminates the concept of an illegal order since the law would be whatever the executive interprets it to be. Isn't this exactly how it works? They interpret it and that stands unless challenged in court.

The nuance here, based on the EO, is rank file and employees of these agencies must now rely on the sole interpretation of the law by either the president or the AG instead of themselves. These _were_ independent agencies who handled their own interpretation of the law. If you combine this EO with the Supreme Court immunity decision, there may very well be a situation where a rank and file employee acts illegally bas…

Seems like an enormous organizational challenge to even get through the queue of other US gov agency attorneys wanting to know the presidents opinion on just how many ppm of this particulate is allowed per the statute. Such that the new status quo will be no enforcement at all. And maybe that's just fine w this administration.

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

#865

Post by tsimionescu »

refurb wrote: post #803
Nevermark wrote: post #788

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All three branches of the government are beholden to the Constitution as a whole, and to each other based on the Constitutional roles and their expressions of their roles. All government actors individually are also responsible to the Constitution and its expression by all three branches first , before any loyalty to anyone else. In the same branch or not. Even before the current top office holders of the executive b…

> 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…

Every citizen in a democracy has a duty to understand, respect, and uphold the law and the constitution. Congress defines what the law is, the judiciary adjudicates disputes on how the law should be interpreted, and the president can only execute that law. But all federal employees have their own duty to understand and uphold the law. The president has no special power to interpret the law: the law is what it is, and perhaps what the courts clarify.

An agency head that is disobeying the law can be fired by the president. An agency head who is not disobeying the law can't be fired (assuming there is no other cause, such as poor management, of course). If there is disagreement on whether the agency head was upholding the law or not, that's not up to the president, it's up to the courts to decide.

Having the president be the ultimate authority on the interpretation of every law and regulation, even within the executive branch, is not only unconstitutional, but also unworkable. A single man can't physically review every single aspect of the American government, they have neither the time nor the mental capacity to be the ultimate authority on every single aspect of the federal government.

So not only is it normal that the president defers to agency heads on the interpretation of the applicable law that they are experts in, it is the only way the system can function. The president has plenty of control over the agency by naming the head, they don't need and can't have more control than that.

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

#866

Post by ncr100 »

reubenswartz wrote: post #631
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.

The "strong" man and his allies are the ones that crippled the legislative branch, except for tax cuts for the rich and appointing unqualified SC justices. There was bipartisan (Republican-ish) immigration legislation with enough votes pass until Trump told people to vote against it, because he knew that he could blame the problem on his opponents and many people would believe him. Note that none of this would be pos…

(NOTE: Largely reposting a Robert Reich bit of writing in the Quoted areas)

FIRST Interesting how, if true, the GOP Political class is now beholden to Musk:

http://youtube.com/post/UgkxTKZoZe_AzdNF8w7X0HO19w6xxH5rGinI...

> Congress is supine because Republicans are in charge, and Musk has also become Trump’s hatchet man — threatening Republican members of Congress if they deviate from Trump.

> Iowa’s Republican Senator Joni Ernst was firmly set against Pete Hegseth for secretary of defense until Musk hinted that he’d finance a primary challenger to Ernst, who’s up for reelection next year. Presto: Ernst supported Hegseth.

> Indiana’s Republican Senator Todd Young expressed concern about the nomination of Tulsi Gabbard to be director of national intelligence until Musk tweeted against him. A besieged Young spoke with JD Vance, who arranged a call with Musk. Presto: Young announced he would back Gabbard.

> Musk warned Republican lawmakers in December that he was compiling a “naughty list” of members who buck Trump’s agenda. He also pledged shortly after Election Day that his political action committee would “play a significant role in primaries” next year.

> A Republican senator told The Hill that Musk’s wealth makes primary threats “a bigger deal.”

SECOND And Interesting how some Media, Wa Po in this case, coincidentally blocked Paid Advertisement advocating an Anti-MUSK Political takt.

> Musk’s financial and political power have been enough to intimidate even the mainstream media. An advertisement set to run in The Washington Post yesterday calling for Musk to be fired from his role in government was abruptly canceled, according to Common Cause, one of the groups that had ordered the ad. When asked why the Post had pulled the ad, the Post said it was not at liberty to give a reason.

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

#867

Post by [deleted] »

masklinn wrote: post #410
bagels wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Republican Senators want this. It's not about statistics. They believe in this stupid Unitary Executive thing (aka, we should have a King).

They don’t actually believe in unitary executive theory, as can plainly be seen any time a democrat is elected president.

[deleted]

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

#868

Post by kelnos »

hector126 wrote: post #798
generic92034 wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Eventually, and in fact about 50% of the time - the OTHER team is in power.. and may just push the overreach further. Are you sure this is going to be a fact, in the future? How likely is it, that the next elections will still be (somewhat) fair?

I would put the odds at 99.9% that the US will hold an election in 2028 and that it will be the international consensus that regardless of the outcome, the election will be decided fairly by the voters and will not be "hacked" or "unfair" as current and past fringe commentators have tried to present.

I mostly agree, but GOP efforts to disenfranchise voters they don't like have only stepped up further in recent years. (In particular, the SAVE Act, if passed, could really mess things up even more.) But I think the left sees the whole frothing-at-the-mouth "stop the steal" stuff as counterproductive and won't go that route, so I'd agree that, for the most part, the 2028 elections will be judged to be fair and free of fraud, regardless of outcome, at least by anyone who is not a Republican.

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

#869

Post by kelnos »

readthenotes1 wrote: post #492
generic92034 wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Eventually, and in fact about 50% of the time - the OTHER team is in power.. and may just push the overreach further. Are you sure this is going to be a fact, in the future? How likely is it, that the next elections will still be (somewhat) fair?

That's the reaction some extreme Trump supporters I know had after 2020. They claimed there would never be another fair election because of the manipulation of the electronic voting machines

That's not really the point, though. Elections for federal offices are run by the states. The Trumpers can complain all they want about voter fraud and vote manipulation, but if the evidence isn't there (which it almost certainly won't be), then it will be a fair and free election.

Obviously I would prefer if these morons on the right wouldn't fall for Trump's conspiracy bullshit, as democracy functions much better when everyone has faith in the integrity of elections. But as long as the elections are fair, that's still something in the "plus" column.

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

#870

Post by grandempire »

advisedwang wrote: post #294
grandempire wrote: post #30

The only rebuttal I see in the media is that congress set these up to be “independent”. But our government doesn’t have independent branches. In fact that sounds a lot like “unelected and unaccountable”. So which branches are these agencies under? Is it in the judicial, legislative, or executive - and if it’s in the executive why can’t the chief executive manage business? On the other hand, one of the issues brought…

Congress makes lots of rules about how the executive can wield power: * FOIA tells the executive branch when/how to share documents. * APA tells executive agencies what they have to do to make a rule. * Congress gives line item budgets, and the executive doesn't get to reassign funds. * Executive agencies must submit to audits from GAO (within congress) It's perfectly reasonable for congress to limit how executive ag…

> It's perfectly reasonable for congress to limit how executive agency heads can be hired/fired too.

In some limited employment law sense , maybe. The question is who gives these people orders? Who do they work for? And the answer can’t be themselves.

Post reply on HN