6 ms·

Looks like the EPA is being targeted (Even though ninety-five percent of the funding going to EPA has not only been appropriated, but is locked in, legally obli

Looks like the EPA is being targeted (Even though ninety-five percent of the funding going to EPA has not only been appropriated, but is locked in, legally obligated grant funding. The Constitution does not give the president a line item veto over Congress's spending decisions): https://www.cbsnews.com/news/epa-employees-warned-of-immediate-termination/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/epa-employees-warned-of-immedia...

TheBlight 2y ago
[flagged]
- dangrossman 2y ago
  > "While 5 CFR 315 does permit immediate termination, it does not permit arbitrary termination. The termination must be related to unsatisfactory performance or conduct (section 804) or conditions arising before employment, which usually means something from your background investigation (section 805)..." https://www.reddit.com/r/fednews/comments/1id7ud2/comment/m9x5eju/ https://www.reddit.com/r/fednews/comments/1id7ud2/comment/m9...
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946 contains the rule that prevents the U.S. executive branch from acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Definitely not legit.
  - jfengel 2y ago
    I would not take definitions of "arbitrary" or "capricious" for granted. Legal words never mean what most people think they mean, especially once the Supreme Court gets their hands on it.
    - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
      This term is well defined in settled case law over the last 80 years. Thee Supreme Court already ruled Trump can not do these sort of arbitrary and capricious executive orders his last term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Homeland_Security_v._Regents_of_the_University_of_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Homeland_Securit...
      - jfengel 2y ago
        I'm not sure he really cares if these actions get overturned. At least some of them will be sustained, even if only because somebody's lawyers faffs oral arguments. And I suspect that he'll just ignore the court in some cases. How many legions hath the Supreme Court?
  - eadler 2y ago
    The Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) precludes APA review amongst other relief (since it precludes district court jurisdiction entirely). That being said, this "termination" is likely invalid under the CSRA. Please see Elgin v. Dept. of Treasury 567 U.S. 1 (2012) for details. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/11-45 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/11-45 https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep567/usrep567001/usrep567001.pdf https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep...
arcbyte 2y ago
The President's ability to affect spending is definitely limited, and hasn't been exercised really since Reagan, but still exists. Congress rarely makes spending money it's goal, rather it appropriates money to accomplish some goal. Which is to say that if Congress wants a bridge across a river and appropriate 10 billion to build it, the President is not obligated to spend $10 billion if 7 or 8 or 9 will do. In some cases, Congress does appropriate money toward causes and intends all the money to be spent in furtherance of some guiding principle and in these cases all the money must be spent.
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  If that money has already been awarded to be given out the executive can not arbritrality withdraw it. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946 contains the rule that prevents the U.S. executive branch from acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Trump was already slapped for doing this by the Supreme Court in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California.
  - zeagle 2y ago
    I think it has become pretty clear Trump can do whatever the hell he wants because nobody will call him out or prosecute him for it.
    - NewJazz 2y ago
      Or if he gets convicted of a crime by a jury, he receives no consequences.
      - trashtester 2y ago
        I'll probably be downvoted for this, but don't you think winning the popular vote is similar to being found "not guilty" after appealing to a higher court?
        2y ago
ks2048 2y ago
I really don't think "Trump can't do it, if it's illegal" is going to fly this time. I hope so, but I'm not very confident. Of course, he can't get away with too much alone, but with the right appointees, judges, etc, who knows.
- ks2048 2y ago
  And people saying "Congress controls spending, not the President" - there are already reports of Musk trying to take control of the system that sends out money. https://newrepublic.com/post/190983/top-treasury-official-quit-elon-musk-fight-payment-system https://newrepublic.com/post/190983/top-treasury-official-qu... EDIT: apparently Musk succeeded: https://bsky.app/profile/wyden.senate.gov/post/3lh5ejpwncc23 https://bsky.app/profile/wyden.senate.gov/post/3lh5ejpwncc23
  - lowercased 2y ago
    Congress appropriates money to be spend. Executive branch ... 'executes' things with appropriated money. Previous Trump administration tested a lot of norms, and current one is going to be pushing past every boundary of normal/accepted/traditional behaviour we've ever seen. The will of the people, expressed through Congress, is that Dept X gets $Y, but the incoming admin is claiming their own 'will of the people mandate' to completely upend how appropriated money is spent, and indeed, if it's spent at all. When you do not believe government agencies should exist, why would you want to enable them to spend money?
    - ks2048 2y ago
      Well, we'll see what the courts do - and maybe more importantly - what the people on the street do when/if it starts affecting their lives. I'm not a legal scholar, but I'm going to guess that saying "congress appropriates money, but the President can decide if they actually get it" is a pretty fringe idea.
      - lowercased 2y ago
        Most of the MAGA ideas are fringe. And they're pissed they've not been 'listened to' for years. That's part of the point. This is all revenge/retribution, both on Trump's part, but also for a minority class of people who've felt 'left out' and 'ridiculed'.
softwaredoug 2y ago
I don't get why there's not legal action then? Maybe its a matter of nobody having standing?
- toyg 2y ago
  There is some action , certain states have already started suing. But it takes some time and effort to file suits that are watertight, it's harder and slower than just writing illegal, unconstitutional, or inapplicable acts
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  Trump is basically doing a blitzkrieg of EO's. Lawsuits are happening slowly between judges injuctioning Trump's budget freeze, employees suing the government over the OP issues, and states suing over various orders. But so much is happening at once that it's hard to keep track of your full time job isn't politics.

TheBlight 2y ago

[flagged]

dangrossman 2y ago
> "While 5 CFR 315 does permit immediate termination, it does not permit arbitrary termination. The termination must be related to unsatisfactory performance or conduct (section 804) or conditions arising before employment, which usually means something from your background investigation (section 805)..." https://www.reddit.com/r/fednews/comments/1id7ud2/comment/m9x5eju/ https://www.reddit.com/r/fednews/comments/1id7ud2/comment/m9...
_DeadFred_ 2y ago
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946 contains the rule that prevents the U.S. executive branch from acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Definitely not legit.
- jfengel 2y ago
  I would not take definitions of "arbitrary" or "capricious" for granted. Legal words never mean what most people think they mean, especially once the Supreme Court gets their hands on it.
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    This term is well defined in settled case law over the last 80 years. Thee Supreme Court already ruled Trump can not do these sort of arbitrary and capricious executive orders his last term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Homeland_Security_v._Regents_of_the_University_of_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Homeland_Securit...
    - jfengel 2y ago
      I'm not sure he really cares if these actions get overturned. At least some of them will be sustained, even if only because somebody's lawyers faffs oral arguments. And I suspect that he'll just ignore the court in some cases. How many legions hath the Supreme Court?
- eadler 2y ago
  The Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) precludes APA review amongst other relief (since it precludes district court jurisdiction entirely). That being said, this "termination" is likely invalid under the CSRA. Please see Elgin v. Dept. of Treasury 567 U.S. 1 (2012) for details. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/11-45 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/11-45 https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep567/usrep567001/usrep567001.pdf https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep...

arcbyte 2y ago

The President's ability to affect spending is definitely limited, and hasn't been exercised really since Reagan, but still exists. Congress rarely makes spending money it's goal, rather it appropriates money to accomplish some goal. Which is to say that if Congress wants a bridge across a river and appropriate 10 billion to build it, the President is not obligated to spend $10 billion if 7 or 8 or 9 will do. In some cases, Congress does appropriate money toward causes and intends all the money to be spent in furtherance of some guiding principle and in these cases all the money must be spent.

_DeadFred_ 2y ago
If that money has already been awarded to be given out the executive can not arbritrality withdraw it. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946 contains the rule that prevents the U.S. executive branch from acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Trump was already slapped for doing this by the Supreme Court in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California.
- zeagle 2y ago
  I think it has become pretty clear Trump can do whatever the hell he wants because nobody will call him out or prosecute him for it.
  - NewJazz 2y ago
    Or if he gets convicted of a crime by a jury, he receives no consequences.
    - trashtester 2y ago
      I'll probably be downvoted for this, but don't you think winning the popular vote is similar to being found "not guilty" after appealing to a higher court?
      - 2y ago

ks2048 2y ago

I really don't think "Trump can't do it, if it's illegal" is going to fly this time. I hope so, but I'm not very confident. Of course, he can't get away with too much alone, but with the right appointees, judges, etc, who knows.

ks2048 2y ago
And people saying "Congress controls spending, not the President" - there are already reports of Musk trying to take control of the system that sends out money. https://newrepublic.com/post/190983/top-treasury-official-quit-elon-musk-fight-payment-system https://newrepublic.com/post/190983/top-treasury-official-qu... EDIT: apparently Musk succeeded: https://bsky.app/profile/wyden.senate.gov/post/3lh5ejpwncc23 https://bsky.app/profile/wyden.senate.gov/post/3lh5ejpwncc23
- lowercased 2y ago
  Congress appropriates money to be spend. Executive branch ... 'executes' things with appropriated money. Previous Trump administration tested a lot of norms, and current one is going to be pushing past every boundary of normal/accepted/traditional behaviour we've ever seen. The will of the people, expressed through Congress, is that Dept X gets $Y, but the incoming admin is claiming their own 'will of the people mandate' to completely upend how appropriated money is spent, and indeed, if it's spent at all. When you do not believe government agencies should exist, why would you want to enable them to spend money?
  - ks2048 2y ago
    Well, we'll see what the courts do - and maybe more importantly - what the people on the street do when/if it starts affecting their lives. I'm not a legal scholar, but I'm going to guess that saying "congress appropriates money, but the President can decide if they actually get it" is a pretty fringe idea.
    - lowercased 2y ago
      Most of the MAGA ideas are fringe. And they're pissed they've not been 'listened to' for years. That's part of the point. This is all revenge/retribution, both on Trump's part, but also for a minority class of people who've felt 'left out' and 'ridiculed'.

softwaredoug 2y ago

I don't get why there's not legal action then? Maybe its a matter of nobody having standing?

toyg 2y ago
There is some action , certain states have already started suing. But it takes some time and effort to file suits that are watertight, it's harder and slower than just writing illegal, unconstitutional, or inapplicable acts
johnnyanmac 2y ago
Trump is basically doing a blitzkrieg of EO's. Lawsuits are happening slowly between judges injuctioning Trump's budget freeze, employees suing the government over the OP issues, and states suing over various orders. But so much is happening at once that it's hard to keep track of your full time job isn't politics.