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

931–940 of 1001 posts

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

#931

Post by kasey_junk »

grandempire wrote: post #876
kasey_junk wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't 'independent' they are 'a mix between executive and legislative'. The Supreme Court decisions are Meyers v US and Hunters Executor v US. And I'm not a constitutional scholar but my reading of it is that the protections in question come from the legislative delegating some of their power to the executive, think legislative actions (researching laws, etc) but retaining their constitutional prerogative to pr…

“ Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926), was a United States Supreme Court decision ruling that the President has the exclusive power to remove executive branch officials, and does not need the approval of the Senate or any other legislative body.”

Yes. Now look up Humphreys Executor which is mentioned in the next sentence after the sentence you quoted in Wikipedia.

It limits that power when it comes to the quasi-legislative agencies.

That was the unambiguous law of the land for nearly 100 years until the current court whittled down the exclusion in Seila in 2020.

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

#932

Post by drunkpotato »

FuckButtons wrote: post #804
refurb wrote: post #800

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

I’m sad that you’re being downvoted. It’s clear that you’re correct. However, HN does tend to take extending the courtesy of assuming good faith to the breaking point, whether we like it or not.

It’s blindingly obvious that they are here merely to gum up discussion in endless loops that go nowhere under the guise of politesse and question marks, as if they’re just confused and asking clarifying questions.

The thing about assuming good faith, which I agree with in principle, is that you have to be willing to accept your own judgment of when someone is arguing in bad faith and disengage.

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

#933

Post by camgunz »

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 constitutional argument is ridiculous; we've really been frog boiled into a wildly different understanding of executive power than even the most monarchical Founders imagined. Article II sections 2 and 3 are short and grant almost no powers. Practically all executive power outside stuff like appointments and pardons derives from this clause: "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". Nearly all governmental power resides in Congress, on purpose, as it's the most democratically responsive yet least efficient of the branches. For example, a lot of people probably think either Commerce or Treasury mint coins. Nope, constitution says that's Congress. People think State, or maybe Commerce negotiates trade treaties; nope Congress again. Post Office? Congress.

What this means is that the President executes Congress' will. Reading the Constitution, there's just no argument for anything else. You have to dig into subsequent history, acts of Congress, and Supreme Court decisions to reach the justifications for the wild increase of presidential power. I'm not saying this is bad per se, just that the Constitution argument is absolutely bankrupt and ahistorical: there was zero appetite for a powerful executive in the Continental Congress.

That's what's so radical about this EO: it's antithetical to the very founding of the US where we rebelled against a king and ultimately adopted a constitution with a very weak executive. It supplants the will of Congress with the will of the executive, undermining the separation of powers, plenary powers, and the very underpinnings of our government.

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

#934

Post by kelnos »

DrillShopper wrote: post #471
tptacek wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, yes, that's how the system works: a determined President can, in fact, grab as much power as the Supreme Court will allow. That's literally what the Supreme Court is there for.

The president can arguably pack the court and with his majorities nobody will stop him If you believe the Supreme Court is an effective guardrail against tyranny then you're deeply mistaken. The only true safeguard against tyranny is the American people refusing to comply and responding with force of arms if pushed.

Assuming the US military remains loyal to the president... if you really think that the Proud Boys and their ilk, plus a bunch of random disorganized people with guns, have even the remotest chance of winning a war with the US military, well... I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

And if the US military doesn't remain loyal to the president, then on top of a fascist dictator seizing power, then we'll have a military coup.

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

#935

Post by kelnos »

jmyeet wrote: post #440
axus wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Supreme Court literally said that Trump has absolute immunity for criminal use of presidential power. Combined with the statistical impossibility of a 2/3 senate majority for impeachment, this is a license to grab as much power as that same court will allow.

A competent Joe Biden would've taken that ruling, said "thank you very much" and "cleaned house" with Seal Team Six of select judges and politicians and then pardoned everyone involved. The fact that SCOTUS wasn't even slightly concerned about that happening belies the problem: the Democrats are ineffectual by design. They knew Biden would throw his hands up citing "norms" and "institutions" as an excuse to do absolu…

> the Democrats are ineffectual by design

In many situations, those who have morals and scruples will be ineffectual when faced with an adversary who has none. Biden didn't "clean house" because he believes in the rule of law, and believes that if he'd done that, he should go to jail, even if he wouldn't.

Not everyone has an ethical code that only exists because they're afraid they'll go to jail if they break it. Some people just don't think it's ok to do the wrong thing.

Put another way: if you become the monster you're trying to fight, that's often not materially different from the monster winning in the first place.

Having said that, I do think that Democrats should fight a little dirtier sometimes. I think that would be possible to do without becoming that monster.

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

#936

Post by kelnos »

4ndrewl wrote: post #456
axus wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Supreme Court literally said that Trump has absolute immunity for criminal use of presidential power. Combined with the statistical impossibility of a 2/3 senate majority for impeachment, this is a license to grab as much power as that same court will allow.

Your courts and judiciary don't have any power - he'll just write an EO to release people. Senate and Congress likewise - meaningless talking shops.

Not even that. Trump controls federal law enforcement. If Congress or a federal court says "arrest cabinet member XYZ for contempt", Trump can just say "no".

Congress does have some law enforcement personnel, but I doubt they'd be interested in getting in a standoff with the Secret Service.

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

#937

Post by kelnos »

gottorf wrote: post #209
snowwrestler wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We’re not “missing” anything, your interpretation of the Constitution is incorrect. You may want to scroll up and read Article I, which constrains Article II (that’s why it comes first). Your understanding of Chevron deference is also incorrect, for what it’s worth.

> You may want to scroll up and read Article I, which constrains Article II (that’s why it comes first) What in Article I imposes constraints on the presidency? It's almost all about the legislature itself, and hardly mentions the executive. Specifically, I don't see anything that lends credence to the idea that Congress can control the workings of executive departments.

Congress created those departments, and specified how they should be staffed and operated, and what powers they were granted.

That's because the executive does not have the power to create those departments (Article II does not grant that power).

It's an undeniably weird setup: the departments are staffed and run by the executive branch, and they report up into the president, but they are still accountable to Congress, which is where their power to do anything is derived from.

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

#938

Post by kelnos »

biimugan wrote: post #783

This whole situation really goes to show that both the judiciary and the legislature need to be greatly expanded -- probably by 10 fold or more. Even if you greatly reduce the size of the federal government. The executive employs approximately 3,000,000 employees. The federal judiciary only employs about 30,000 total, and the legislature about 20,000 total. The sheer velocity with which the executive can ram through…

What about Chevron is a problem in this particular case, though? My understanding is that ditching the doctrine of Chevron deference puts more power back in the hands of the judiciary.

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

#939

Post by afpx »

afpx wrote: post #619
ptah wrote: post #173

this is impacting scientific research to the point that people are scrubbing the word "gender" from their papers to avoid their research programs getting flagged by the doge gestapo

Given that it took about two centuries for the public to accept the heliocentric model, some patience may be needed. A great number of people only learn about gender through undergraduate education. And, iirc, only 25% of the population have undergraduate degrees.

Heh, I can't tell if the downvotes are pro-gender studies, anti-gender studies, or just don't want to hear about gender studies.

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

#940

Post by kelnos »

kupopuffs wrote: post #740
Trasmatta wrote: post #639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That "guidance" is not so easy when the tyrant has control of the most powerful military the planet has ever seen I have no idea how you even propose that to happen

A well-regulated militia could very well include military. And it's hard to imagine the military following the president when the people do not agree

So far it seems at least half of the people do agree, though.

And the US military doesn't answer to the people at least not directly. I don't think it should be swayed by public opinion like that. I mean, we're talking about a military coup here. I despise Donald Trump and would like nothing more than to see him drummed out of office, but the military making that happen means we don't have a democracy anymore.

Post reply on HN