9 ms·
As awful as this is, it seems completely legal since the executive agencies operate at the mercy of the President. The President has the authority to tell the E
by sid-kap 10y ago
As awful as this is, it seems completely legal since the executive agencies operate at the mercy of the President. The President has the authority to tell the EPA to stop researching climate science, or to even disband the EPA.
Have we never considered this scenario before? Has there ever been an attempt to establish independent agencies, not subject to the whims of the White House? (IIRC, maybe the CIA or the FBI are independent agencies?)
- nyxtom 10y agoFBI and CIA are under the executive branch of government and as such conduct/policies are directed by the residing administration. I don't like the idea of having an independent branch of government not subject to the executive branch no matter how terrible that administration is. I take issue with the fact that the executive branch basically writes laws now, which was never the intention and congress is too slow and partisan to pass any laws at all - that and pork barrel.
- nyxtom 10y agoAlso, there are laws in place that the EPA is responsible for. So it is highly unlikely (illegal even) to simply disband the EPA for any reason. The only way to do that is through congress by repealing a host of laws that the EPA is effectively responsible for. That is to say, the EPA is responsible for executing on those laws. If they don't, then the government could be sued - which is the purpose of the justice department. That's why we have great organizations like the ACLU and NRDC to make sure those laws get upheld in a court of law.
- nyxtom 10y agoThat being said, there are a number of laws that are likely to get axed by the new administration - probably without congress approval given how much the executive branch likes to write laws these days. Clean Power Act, Endangered Species Act..etc. Clean Power Act is likely to go I'm guessing as soon as they can get it