3 ms·

> If the President gets elected promising to fire executive branch employees, then his doing so is literally democratic. But it may not be legal, which is dete

> If the President gets elected promising to fire executive branch employees, then his doing so is literally democratic. But it may not be legal, which is determined by the Constitution and laws set by Congress. People who are also elected democratically. Behaving in a manner counter to those laws is also fundamentally undemocratic, the President and the Executive are bound by those laws set by the representatives of the people. The President is not a monarch or autocrat, he is not a king or dictator with the authority to do whatever he wants. He is empowered to act, but constrained in his actions by law.

xyzzyz 2y ago
Sorry, can you be more specific as to what law is being broken? You imply that this is illegal, but you don’t say how exactly.
- Jtsummers 2y ago
  > Sorry, can you be more specific as to what law is being broken? At least in the case of the IG firings, he failed to comply with the 30 day notice required by law. My point is actually broader than just the firings and dismissals. The elected President is not an elected autocrat. He doesn't get to do what he wants because "his doing so is literally democratic". He gets to act in a way that complies with the democratically set laws.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    And federal employees have no separate role in the tripartite constitutional structure. That seems more important than some employment laws.
skissane 2y ago
> But it may not be legal, which is determined by the Constitution and laws set by Congress. People who are also elected democratically. Behaving in a manner counter to those laws is also fundamentally undemocratic, the President and the Executive are bound by those laws set by the representatives of the people. The word "may" is important here. Ultimately, the Supreme Court will interpret the laws and the Constitution and decide whether this Presidential action is legal or not. Until they do, its (il)legality a matter of possibility, opinion and conjecture, not established fact. And, given the ideological leanings of the current SCOTUS majority, it is entirely possible that they'll uphold this Presidential action, and either interpret away any apparent statutory violations, or rule those statutes unconstitutional in this respect. In which case, the answer will ultimately be, that it was legal all along.
rayiner 2y ago
Even assuming that’s true, violating some employment action notice laws is far less “anti-democratic” than the federal workforce declaring Resistance to the agenda of the elected government. Yes, the President is constrained by law. But hiring and firing executive branch employees is also at the core of his constitutional power. And the President is the only constitutional actor that can do this job—Congress or the courts can’t hire and fire people.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

xyzzyz 2y ago

Sorry, can you be more specific as to what law is being broken? You imply that this is illegal, but you don’t say how exactly.

Jtsummers 2y ago
> Sorry, can you be more specific as to what law is being broken? At least in the case of the IG firings, he failed to comply with the 30 day notice required by law. My point is actually broader than just the firings and dismissals. The elected President is not an elected autocrat. He doesn't get to do what he wants because "his doing so is literally democratic". He gets to act in a way that complies with the democratically set laws.
- rayiner 2y ago
  And federal employees have no separate role in the tripartite constitutional structure. That seems more important than some employment laws.

skissane 2y ago

> But it may not be legal, which is determined by the Constitution and laws set by Congress. People who are also elected democratically. Behaving in a manner counter to those laws is also fundamentally undemocratic, the President and the Executive are bound by those laws set by the representatives of the people. The word "may" is important here. Ultimately, the Supreme Court will interpret the laws and the Constitution and decide whether this Presidential action is legal or not. Until they do, its (il)legality a matter of possibility, opinion and conjecture, not established fact. And, given the ideological leanings of the current SCOTUS majority, it is entirely possible that they'll uphold this Presidential action, and either interpret away any apparent statutory violations, or rule those statutes unconstitutional in this respect. In which case, the answer will ultimately be, that it was legal all along.

rayiner 2y ago

Even assuming that’s true, violating some employment action notice laws is far less “anti-democratic” than the federal workforce declaring Resistance to the agenda of the elected government. Yes, the President is constrained by law. But hiring and firing executive branch employees is also at the core of his constitutional power. And the President is the only constitutional actor that can do this job—Congress or the courts can’t hire and fire people.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]