11 ms·
In 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
by jaggederest 2y ago
In 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.
- toomuchtodo 2y agoCongressional Research Service: USAID Under the Trump Administration - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42941591 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42941591 - Feb 20205
- vkou 2y agoIt's the inevitable outcome of a judiciary packed with lifetime appointments who put the traitor who appointed them over country.
- HumblyTossed 2y agoIt's called a coup. How long until Elon dismisses Trump? Let that sink in...
- AtlasBarfed 2y agoMusk is a convenient fool for the trump administration. He will be cast aside and scapegoated in less than 6months. He might end up in jail in 2-4 years.
- beAbU 2y agoThe Musk-Trump breakup will truly be the breakup of the century.
- modriano 2y ago> He might end up in jail in 2-4 years. You think the Trump administration is going to prosecute the wealthiest person on earth? Attention and wealth are the currencies of Trumpian politics, and I would be shocked to see Trump try to fight someone with such a massive ability to direct attention (via control over twitter and through having hundreds of billions of dollars).
- zombiwoof 2y agoIf Trump can make money on it, he will put anyone in jail. Musk is such an easy target, Trump could take him down in a heartbeat , freeze his assets and put ownership of his companies in his control. And let me state this as clear as I can: this would all be perfectly legal “official acts”
- moogly 2y agoYou cannot practically imprison the richest man in the world. He'd end up running the place like a king, like El Chapo did. The only way forward is to exile him to Mars.
- 1659447091 2y ago> Musk is a convenient fool for the trump administration. Exactly this. And he doesn't even see it. There will be no "Elon dismisses Trump". Elon is not a natural born US citizen, Trump is. Trump wins, because if one has been paying attention, the people who put Trump in office don't like immigrants all that much.
- jaggederest 2y ago> we are in a very volatile place Understatement of (this) century at least.
- chgs 2y agoWe’ve seen that in Korea very recently.
- jquery 2y agoLook at the comments. It's only been two weeks, and people are already tired of members of Congress running to the media after Musk does something illegal. They want these members to force the police to arrest them on behalf of Musk. I'm in agreement. These people are softer than tissue paper. Where's the energy South Korean representatives had when their President declared martial law?
- sockp0pp3t 2y ago[flagged]
- gortok 2y ago> Who controls the US Capitol Police? I remind you that they obeyed Trump during the January 6th insurrection. [Citation Needed]. Seriously. Heck, even a cursory read of the Wikipedia article would tell you they are controlled by the Legislative branch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Capitol_Police https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Capitol_Police > The United States Capitol Police (USCP) is a federal law enforcement agency in the United States with nationwide jurisdiction charged with protecting the United States Congress within the District of Columbia and throughout the United States and its territories. It answers to the Capitol Police Board and is the only full-service federal law enforcement agency appointed by the legislative branch of the federal government of the United States. Misinformation is infectious.
- jaredwiener 2y agohttps://www.uscp.gov/the-department/oversight https://www.uscp.gov/the-department/oversight The Capitol Police Board oversees and supports the United States Capitol Police in its mission and helps to advance coordination between the Department and the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives and the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate, in their law enforcement capacities, and the Congress. Consistent with this purpose, the Capitol Police Board establishes general goals and objectives covering its major functions and operations to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its operations. The Capitol Police Board consists of the Sergeant at Arms of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the U.S. Senate, and the Architect of the Capitol. The Chief of the United States Capitol Police serves in an ex-officio non-voting capacity. The Chairmanship alternates annually between the House and Senate Sergeants at Arms.
- jghn 2y agoNot to mention the majority of the legislative branch is at a minimum going to pretend they're all for it
- admissionsguy 2y ago[flagged]
- dekhn 2y agothere was no massive popular mandate. much of congress is actually just too afraid to say anything because they'll get labelled as RINOs and voted out.
- jessepasley 2y agoThis sounds like a popular mandate to me
- dekhn 2y agoHe got just under 50% of the vote. He won by 1.5%, a tiny margin, fourth smallest since 1900. That does not sound like a mandate to me. I also suspect many people who voted for him did not specifically consider what he would actually do.
- willy_k 2y ago> I also suspect many people who voted for him did not specifically consider what he would actually do. So far he has more or less adhered to the plans he and the rest of the crew that coalesced around his campaign over the summer and undoubtedly led to his election said they would do. I would argue that the campaign’s plans were the most accessible of any campaign so far - dozens of hours of discussion on podcasts and the like by him and potential cabinet members, and video addresses for specific policy plans on the agenda 47 website. For example, Musk made it very clear that the intention with DOGE was to move fast and break things, saying (perhaps ignorantly) that if it turns out something was necessary, you just put it back.
- immibis 2y agoThe legislative branch can recall both the president and the judges, but it won't do that because it is happy with what they are doing. Even a Democrat landslide in two years wouldn't change it, because almost all Democratic politicians are unwilling to cause a fuss (or they are secretly happy with what the other branches are doing). But the people are getting what they voted for, so is it really ethical to intervene in that?
- afavour 2y ago> But the people are getting what they voted for I think that’s extremely debatable. Last I checked “unauthorized access to confidential taxpayer information” was not an election topic. This is true on all sides of course, folks who voted for Obama didn’t vote for drone strikes against US citizens either. Winning a presidential election does not mean four years of dictatorship and silencing of criticism.
- Spooky23 2y agoWe (supposedly) elected a king. He’s exempt from all rule of law save spineless congressmen. Whether most of the people doing so were smart enough to understand it is a good question, but the fact is we put a Perón-like figure into office, and only age will likely make him leave.
- germinalphrase 2y agoFWIW, people thought that when Obama ran around saying “these extrajudicial drone strikes are illegal” they assumed that he would end them rather than do what he actually did - make them legal. Power Wars by Charlie Savage covers this rhetorical zig zag.
- CamperBob2 2y agoI think that’s extremely debatable. Last I checked “unauthorized access to confidential taxpayer information” was not an election topic Gee, I'm shocked, shocked, that a guy who stole large numbers of classified documents on his way out the door and stuffed them in unused bathrooms in his house(s) would fail to safeguard confidential taxpayer information. You're right, it wasn't an election topic. Nobody who had any power cared to make it one, nobody who cared had the power... and nobody else was paying attention.
- _petronius 2y agoImpeach! That's the prerogative, and the enforcement mechanism, of the legislative branch.
- 20after4 2y agoTrump has already been impeached a couple of times. That definitely isn't happening with a conservative majority in both houses of congress.
- cogman10 2y agoDems should bring up articles of impeachment yet again. It will fail in the house and if it doesn't the senate won't convict. But that's really not the point right now. The dems need to get off their asses and actually message that "hey, this isn't right or normal" and make the republicans defend the behavior.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- jaggederest 2y agoWhy? To what end? How will any of that have any effect in the next two years, at least? Nobody elected Elon or any of the DOGE people.
- notahacker 2y agoYeah. Frankly driving a wedge between Trump and Elon would be the more effective political strategy, since it wouldn't exactly be uncharacteristic of them to spectacularly fall out, and Trump couldn't care less if DOGE exists or not as long as he's getting praise from the right quarters
- idiotsecant 2y agoIt's inevitable that the two will break up, but it'll be after trump has used him to do all the deeply unpopular hacking apart of social safety nets that he wants to do. He's a useful idiot. A very rich useful idiot.
- epgui 2y agoRIP rule of law.
- namaria 2y agoThe rule of law is always contingent on the good will of the powerful. RIP USA. They are dismantling the country, not an abstract concept. Godspeed my American friends, I hope you live in a strong state, can get to one, or have a second nationality.
- VagabundoP 2y agoIt doesn't take much for a successful coup. Really just the right amount of people to sit on their hands and think that maybe someone else will do something to stop it.
- namaria 2y agoReal. Essa galerinha vai estilhaçar os EUA, vagabundo....
- nwatson 2y agoOre por nós, nesta hora da nossa estupidez. Na verdade, foram muitas outras horas de estupidez, mas o sofrer começa agora.
- jaggederest 2y agoApt sentiment. Translation: Pray for us in this hour of our stupidity. In truth, there have been many other hours of stupidity, but the suffering begins now.
- jaggederest 2y agoTranslation, for convenience: Real. This bunch is going to tear the US apart, Vagabundo
- 2y ago
- vlan0 2y agoAt some point the military needs to remember their oath to the constitution. And act accordingly
- p3rls 2y agoTypically you use uprising/insurrection against the right and you coup the left as the military is usually more right than the average citizen.
- vlan0 2y agoTypically yes. But I don’t know what about this is typical. Trump will throw military under the bus just as fast. It’s up to them to realize that.
- lmm 2y agoThe left will throw them down even faster. I'm honestly baffled as to why any police bothered stopping January 6th - it predictably got them hated by the right, but they never got any thanks or appreciation from the left either, so it looks like a complete losing move to me.
- lanstin 2y agoThey got the Congressional Gold Medal award, and every time I heard Nancy Pelosi speaking of them, she sounded personally grateful. Also, it was their job to keep Congress safe, and there are a lot of people that take their job and their honor seriously. Maybe they don't make the podcasts, but they are out there keeping our society safe.
- Dylan16807 2y agoYou're baffled that someone would do their job if nobody is going to thank them for it?
- lmm 2y ago
- reissbaker 2y agoWhy do you think it's illegal? USAID was established by an executive order by JFK, not by Congress; Congress only mandated that some agency for aid should exist, not that it specifically be USAID. Closing it and not replacing it with anything would be illegal, but closing it doesn't seem obviously illegal. Edit: not only that, but they didn't close USAID entirely: they just closed the USAID headquarters, and installed Marco Rubio as the new head of USAID. While this may or may not be desirable, I don't see how this is actually illegal. The specific organization of USAID was established by executive order; this is one of the many consequences of the Republicans winning control of the executive branch of government.
- insane_dreamer 2y agoThey’re not replacing it with anything. They’re defunding it.
- dgfitz 2y agoAny plays on who is gonna win the Super Bowl? If I were you I’d find a betting market and put ALL my money on your claim. Edit: Daww, no sense of humor?
- insane_dreamer 2y agoNo need to guess when they’ve already publicly stated it.
- llamaimperative 2y agoThat's even more clearly illegal. The Executive doesn't determine where money goes. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: > The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
- brookst 2y agoInteresting take. I think it applies to every agency? Shutter NASA, and any congressional act merely specifies an agency for aeronautics and space, not necessarily this exact one? As long as it’s eventually reconstituted, no foul. I’m suspicious, but I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised we’ve hit the “one simple trick” era of governing.
- efitz 2y agoOur legislative branch is unable to even minimally fulfill its Constitutional duties. We haven't declared war since WWII, but we've waged a number of them. The Congressional budget process is fundamentally broken and increasingly nondemocratic - the leadership of both parties get "continuing resolutions" passed while they draft a mountainous "omnibus" bill that includes all their pork and graft, then they whip the members of the majority party to pass it without reading it. The Congressional oversight committees are usually captured by the industries and/or agencies they oversee. Congressional hearings are not used to inform Congress or the people; they're nakedly partisan acting gigs for committee members. Congress has unconstitutionally delegated much of its authority to a bureaucracy run by the executive branch, intending to have it operate independently of the president. Now we have a president who is choosing to exercise his authority over the executive branch. Of course, it is illegal and unconstitutional for the president to eliminate programs that are established by law. But remember the executive branch bureaucracy ONLY exists to allow the president to implement the laws passed by Congress. If the laws aren't explicit or delegate to an executive branch agency HOW they law/program will be implemented, then the president has enormous authority over how to implement it, and there is nothing Constitutionally wrong with that. So if the president says "we don't need 10000 people to implement CFR 1.2.3 section 4, we only need 10", and he can implement the law/program as passed by Congress with 10 people, then he's allowed to do that. The big problem is that Congress MUST depend on the executive branch to, er, execute. Whatever is required to implement the law, that isn't specified in the law, is up to the executive branch, and the President is the head of that branch. And all this BS about "classification" again only exists to enable the president to do his job. If the president says someone can have access to something, that is non-negotiable, as two USAID folks found out over the weekend. The bureaucracy has for decades used classification to make a currency out of secrets and to try to avoid oversight. Looks like that ride has ended.
- matthewdgreen 2y agoAnd yet all of the inefficiency of Congress and the Courts is better than the alternative, which is dictatorship with no guardrails. We've seen what this looks like in many countries, and nothing you say, do, or own will be safe.
- sandworm101 2y ago>> is the legislative branch going to do? Impeach. Subpoena. Then arrest if subpoena ignored. Pass laws (supermajority to bypass veto). Cut funding to executive office. Then go nuclear with things like amendment putting the armed forces under legislative control. Lots options. All require a united front.
- DFHippie 2y ago> All require a united front. Which requires Republicans to honor their oath to uphold the Constitution. So it's a non-starter.
- sandworm101 2y agoOr, massive recalls across the country change the math. My point is that there are totally legal and constitutional options. Nobody need result to silliness.
- petersellers 2y ago> Lots options. All require a united front. So in other words "no options" because we will never have a unified front in the legislative branch.
- DrillShopper 2y ago> what is the legislative branch going to do? What did Parliament do during the English Civil War?
- prpl 2y agoMore succinctly - "So Sue them" It will take a long time to go through the courts, the courts may not care, and even if they do, you can usually appeal and drag your feet long enough that it doesn't matter. Oh, and bonus here, if you become president again you get another reset. It's illegal, but there's no recourse for action. It's a DDoS on the legal system and he's got all three branches by the balls. The courts can intervene in some of the cases some of the time, but it won't intervene in all of the cases all of the time. The only way forward here is if everybody in the federal government either does the same thing, or that they become so ineffective and unreliable at _their_ jobs that everything is slowed down enough for the courts to intervene.
- FrustratedMonky 2y ago"unless the sergeant at arms of the senate goes out and handcuffs them" Capturing the courts is the first step in a fascist takeover. The Republican controlled legislature isn't going to send the sergeant at arms and arrest him. There is nothing in the way now. "It could happen here."
- UncleOxidant 2y agoLot's of speculation over the decades about what Gödel's Loophole was, but one wonders if it lies in this direction. "Gödel told Morgenstern about the flaw in the constitution, which, he said, would allow the United States to legally become a fascist state." [1] Unfortunately Morgenstern never completely specified what this flaw was. As pointed out in the wikipedia article speculation is that "The loophole is that Article V's procedures can be applied to Article V itself. It can therefore be altered in a "downward" direction, making it easier to alter the article again in the future." But given how difficult it is to amend the constitution it doesn't seem like the problem lies there. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_Loophole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_Loophole
- lovecg 2y agoSame vibes as https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/ to be honest