14 ms·
Never appropriate. The actions are entirely unconstitutional. If the US decided to disband USAID it would have to be an act of congress, unelected friends of th
by afavour 2y ago
Never appropriate. The actions are entirely unconstitutional. If the US decided to disband USAID it would have to be an act of congress, unelected friends of the president don’t come close to being able to make that call.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- aaomidi 2y agoDoesn’t matter if laws don’t matter and aren’t enforced.
- afavour 2y agoOP asked “is it appropriate”. Will they get away with it? Maybe. But that doesn’t mean it’s appropriate.
- mring33621 2y agowe keep having side debates about 'appropriate', 'ethical', 'traditional', 'conventional', 'legal', 'moral', whatever, but the fact remains that you can do whatever you want, until someone else stops you. No one is stopping the people at the top of the US Government from doing what they want. In fact, there is a whole apparatus in place, at this point, to protect their ability to continue to operate unchecked.
- afavour 2y agoI think we’re all aware of that. Irrespective of whether our system of checks and balances is working (it isn’t) it’s still worth pointing out exactly what rules and norms are being broken.
- aaomidi 2y agoTo what end
- gopher_space 2y agoWhat happens next, Mr. Chekhov?
- jaggederest 2y agoIn a sensu stricto it's illegal, but practically and regrettably they are able to make that call, because though there are rules against it, unless the sergeant at arms of the senate goes out and handcuffs them, nobody is going to stop them. When the executive branch and the judiciary both decide to ignore the legislative branch, what is the legislative branch going to do?
- toomuchtodo 2y agoSend the US Capitol Police? Might makes right apparently, so why would you not act as such?
- jaggederest 2y agoWho controls the US Capitol Police? I remind you that they obeyed Trump during the January 6th insurrection. And of course, the executive branch has everyone from the FBI on down, you're not going to win a shooting (or shoving) war with them.
- toomuchtodo 2y agoWell, we are in a very volatile place if members of Congress can successfully be barred from government property by Elon Musk. https://bsky.app/profile/newsguy.bsky.social/post/3lhcadi7oys2m https://bsky.app/profile/newsguy.bsky.social/post/3lhcadi7oy...
- cle 2y agoThis seems like an inevitable outcome of indefinite growth in executive power. > If there are no consequences, the law is immaterial. That is exactly what I mean by "growth in executive power".
- toomuchtodo 2y agoI disagree. This is the outcome of someone who doesn't believe in the law acting accordingly. If there are no consequences, the law is immaterial. If the law is to remain intact, show up with force and enforce it. Checks and balances within the branches of federal government. Edit: DOJ Says Administration Doesnt Have to Follow Court Order Halting Funding Freeze - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42923302 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42923302 So much for checks and balances I suppose.
- pessimizer 2y ago[flagged]
- johnobrien1010 2y agoUSAID was established by an executive order and then also created by law by Congress: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title22/chapter74&edition=prelim https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title22/cha...
- pessimizer 2y agoThe opposite happened. Congress said that an agency should manage aid, and then USAID was created by executive order. Trump could just create another agency.
- Aloisius 2y agoCongress passed a law in 1998 itself to establish US AID, 37 years after the EO. The EO was made with authority that had been granted by another law. That 1998 law does not permit the President to abolish it or name a different organization: > Unless abolished pursuant to the reorganization plan submitted under section 6601 of this title, and except as provided in section 6562 of this title, there is within the Executive branch of Government the United States Agency for International Development as an entity described in section 104 of title 5. - 22 U.S.C. §6563
- 762236 2y agoHe can at least fire everyone in USAID, as he should.
- Aloisius 2y agoActually, no, he can't unilaterally. Congress explicitly forbade downsizing of US AID without prior consultation. > Sec. 7063. (a) Prior Consultation and Notification.--Funds appropriated ... may not be used to implement a reorganization, redesign, or other plan described in subsection (b) by ... the United States Agency for International Development ... without prior consultation ... with the appropriate congressional committees. > (b) ... a reorganization, redesign, or other plan shall include any action to > (1) expand, eliminate, consolidate, or downsize covered departments, agencies ... > (2) expand, eliminate, consolidate, or downsize the United States official presence overseas ... > (3) expand or reduce the size of the permanent Civil Service, Foreign Service, eligible family member, and locally employed staff workforce of the Department of State and USAID from the staffing levels previously justified to the Committees on Appropriations for fiscal year 2024. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2882/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2882...
- rattlesnakedave 2y ago[flagged]
- WhyOhWhyQ 2y agoHow so?
- brtkdotse 2y ago> The actions are entirely unconstitutional. For all the fetishization of the constitution popular media has led me to believe Americans engage in, when push comes to shove it doesn’t seem to be worth the paper it’s written on.
- readthenotes1 2y agoIt'd be interesting to find out why people think moving the USAID organization under the Secretary of State is unconstitutional. If they do not disperse the money as directed by Congress to specific causes by the end of the fiscal year then there is a problem, but not until September 30th
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y agoYou are correct. USAID is an executive agency.
- ineptech 2y agoThat doesn't mean it's subject to the whims of the president. When Congress creates independent agencies, they lay out exactly how the president has oversight (usually by hiring and firing the director and/or board). I remember you pushing this idea (that the independence of independent executive agencies are unconstitutional, or unaccountable, or similar) heavily in a thread a couple days ago. Where is it coming from? AFAIK virtually everyone on both sides has agreed that the independence of these agencies was a Really Good Thing for the last hundred years.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y agoI argued that independent agencies are extra-constitutional, not clearly "un"constitutional, but very clearly not enumerated in the Constitution. Given that, they've operated on a consensus model for so long, it's hard to say that the current admin is doing something illegal by changing (as long as the money is spent by end of fiscal year, due to impoundment laws). This may be a "constitutional crisis" in the parliamentary sense, but hardly in the American sense. >virtually everyone on both sides has agreed This is something I've talked about elsewhere, but the electorate that put Trump in office did it specifically in rejection of the Dem & GOP cooperation of the last several decades which led to the same things happening regardless of who was in charge. From that perspective (and without saying anything about legality or wisdom, etc) Trump is doing exactly what the people who put him in office asked him to do.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y agoStrict constitutionalists would call many of these programs unconstitutional. This is a problem for the left and for neo-cons; they flouted the constitution for so long, that now that someone else (Trump) is doing it to them, the left/neocons don't really have a base that responds well to cries of "Unconstitutional!".
- eightman 2y agoStrict constitutionalists would only apply the 2nd Amendment to barrel loading smooth bore muskets.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y agoI guess you're agreeing with me?
- salawat 2y agoConstitution says nothing about barrel loading, smooth bore muskets. It says "arms". It's a fairly timeless umbrella term for "weapons or objects usable as such". The only people who have trouble understanding this are generally those who approve of the Machine gun registry being closed by having the federal expenditure to maintain it set to $0, and don't that as being an example of "infringement" of a Constitutionally granted right.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y agoLove your answer, totally agree! But please don't feed the trolls!
- maho_hiyajo 2y agoIt also says "a well regulated militia" as a context where the amendment applies.
- tpmoney 2y agoIt also says “the right of the people” a phrase understood in every other part of the constitution and its amendments to refer to the individual citizenry. Notably, you don’t need to be a member of the press to exercise a right to free speech.
- billfor 2y agoTotally appropriate. Everytime congress would ask USAID for information on their spending or audit what they were doing, they would just ignore the requests and say they were apolitical. They're not apolitical. The state department is by definition political, and responsible for the US interests. Totally reasonable to roll it under the state department where they will have to answer questions and not refuse audits. It's not going away it's just going to be accountable to the public that pays its budget (the US taxpayer).
- apical_dendrite 2y agoWhat is your source for this? USAID has an inspector general like every other government agency. Inspector generals are independent of the agency and part of their function is to perform audits. Congress has the same powers with regard to USAID as it has with any other agency. It can investigate, subpoena, etc. The senate must confirm nominees to lead the agency. USAID is subject to the same laws like FOIA as any other agency. What does it even mean to say that the state department is by definition political? There are political appointees, but the overwhelming majority of the state department is career foreign service or career civil service, which are apolitical. The same is true for USAID. None of what you're saying makes any sense or has any relation to reality.
- billfor 2y agoMy source for what? Marco Rubio (head of the state department) stated that they refused to audited. So did other congressmen. https://x.com/cspan/status/1886473339201360210 https://x.com/cspan/status/1886473339201360210 Do you disagree with what he says in the above video? They denied to be audited. The US in USAID stands for United States. Can we not ask what they spend the money on? USAID was not created by congress. It was created by executive order 10973 by JFK. It can be undone by executive order. It's function can be rolled into the state department.
- and0 2y agoI worked on USAID software for reporting costs and results and there were annual and quarterly briefings IIRC. It was kind of a whole thing. Also, Congress codified it as an independent agency in 1998. So.. that last part isn't true either. This stuff isn't hard to look up.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- jmyeet 2y agoSomething is "constitutional" if nine unelected political operatives in black robes with lifetime appointments say it is. This same court invented prisidential immunity out of thin air. They invented "history and tradition" doctrine out of thin air (and then selectively applied it). They invented "major questsions" doctrine to allow them to act as all three branches whenever they want to. There is absolutely no opposition to any of this. There are only the perpetrators and the controlled opposition who are 100% complicit with what's going on. Nobody is coming to save you and certainly not the courts.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- stainablesteel 2y agowhat's unconstitutional is how USAID would stiff-arm senators who want to investigate their activities
- crummy 2y agoGot a source on that? Didn't realize USAID had so much political weight to throw around.
- stainablesteel 2y agoJoni Ernst is a Senator who I heard speak on this issue. She was trying to get information out of USAID and it became a long battle just to check their work and could only do so under extremely limited conditions later. They try to hide everything, basically. This source apparently talks about it, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14359253/joni-ernst-reveals-crazy-usaid-threatened-her.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14359253/joni-ernst...
- _yb2s 2y agoYour comment assumes that the constitution and democracy still stand- which does not appear to me to be the case. Hopefully I’m wrong.
- megous 2y agoToo late, Musk already has direct access to Treasury systems: https://www.crisesnotes.com/elon-musk-wants-to-get-operational-control-of-the-treasurys-payment-system-this-could-not-possibly-be-more-dangerous/ https://www.crisesnotes.com/elon-musk-wants-to-get-operation... And can incite people against anything he chooses on X, like: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1885964969335808217 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1885964969335808217 and he can certainly act quicker than any checks and ballances. We'll see how the system works to get rid of the chaos monkey on the inside.
- colechristensen 2y ago>The actions are entirely unconstitutional. At this point, who cares? The democrats in power have proven themselves wholly incapable of doing anything for many years now.
- dadjoker 2y ago[dead]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]