3 ms·

So we now have an unelected, un-appointed civilian who is the richest man in the world in the oval office telling us how he is tearing it all apart, while the g

by kmos17 2y ago

So we now have an unelected, un-appointed civilian who is the richest man in the world in the oval office telling us how he is tearing it all apart, while the guy who was actually elected is just seating there, and people think this is normal?

nickburns 2y ago
That's how the executive branch works. No executive actions have thus far been successfully challenged to run afoul of the Appointments Clause. This is fundamental US constitutional law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointments_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointments_Clause
- sympil 2y ago
  You should carefully reread the link. What Elon is doing does not have precedence in the U.S. Elon does not have the consent of the Senate. His position is not authorized by Congress or the Constituion. Much of our system relies on people acting in accordance to precedent and within certain established norms. What Elon is doing is way outside those norms. The system is not set up for this type of power to be concentrated in one person who operates outside Congressional oversight. And it appears increasingly likely that he will operate without judicial oversight too. I like how George W. Bush’s ethics counsel put it. https://www.berkshireeagle.com/news/local/elon-musk-trump-government-overreach-democracy-threat/article_b6ee0100-e7ee-11ef-833f-2708b79572dd.html https://www.berkshireeagle.com/news/local/elon-musk-trump-go...
  - nickburns 2y ago
    Just because it has no precedence does not unconstitutional it make. I agree with the majority of the rest of what you've said. No need for the 'you should carefully reread' snark. Not only am I the OP—but I've also passed a bar exam in my lifetime, which preparation included careful US constitutional law study.
    - sympil 2y ago
      I said you should reread it becuase you said “this is how the executive branch works” and the link shows that it is indeed not how it works since Elon does not have the consent of the Senate and his position was not established by Congress or the Constitution. It was a polite way of saying you are wrong. Just because it has no precedence does not unconstitutional it make. Of course not. I did not say or imply otherwise. I said much of our system relies on following political norms. For example, it would have been perfectly Constitional for the last Congress to have removed the entire Supreme Court and replaced the justices. Such a constitutionally valid move would have had very bad implications.
      - nickburns 2y ago
        "[The POTUS] shall have Power [ . . ] and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint [ . . . ] all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."[1] At present Elon's position within the executive branch does not actually nor historically (for obvious reasons) require "Advice and Consent of the Senate", because no one that's part of DOGE, Elon included, is currently constitutionally interpreted to be an "Officer of the United States."[2] Nor has Congress bestowed upon the POTUS the exclusive authority to nominate and appoint whatever Elon's position is without their advice and conset. That's what the after-the-colon part is all about: whether or not the appointment of any "such inferior Officer"[3] whose position is not otherwise expressly provided for (like Elon's) is vested by an act of Congress in the POTUS not requiring their advice and consent—not whether or not any such position is actually 'established by Congress' as you say. That's exactly the point: Congress derives no appointment power from the Appointments Clause. Their role is limited to providing either constitutionally-required advice and consent, or vesting a direct appointment power not requiring their advice and consent in the POTUS. That being said, if the executive branch does something novel, like create and appoint thereto a position (or even an entire department) that didn't exist previously, then certainly that act may be ripe for constitutional challenge under the Appointments Clause. That is squarely one of the primary constiutional issues with what Elon and DOGE are doing, and that would be squarely for the SCOTUS to interpret. Just curious since I don't think I've heard this argument before—from where in the Constitution do you interpret that "it would have been perfectly Constitutional for the last Congress to have removed the entire Supreme Court and replaced the justices"? [1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/#article-2-section-2-clause-2 https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/#ar... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer_of_the_United_States [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointments_Clause#Appointment_of_inferior_officers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointments_Clause#Appointmen...

by kmos17 2y ago

nickburns 2y ago

That's how the executive branch works. No executive actions have thus far been successfully challenged to run afoul of the Appointments Clause. This is fundamental US constitutional law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointments_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointments_Clause

sympil 2y ago
You should carefully reread the link. What Elon is doing does not have precedence in the U.S. Elon does not have the consent of the Senate. His position is not authorized by Congress or the Constituion. Much of our system relies on people acting in accordance to precedent and within certain established norms. What Elon is doing is way outside those norms. The system is not set up for this type of power to be concentrated in one person who operates outside Congressional oversight. And it appears increasingly likely that he will operate without judicial oversight too. I like how George W. Bush’s ethics counsel put it. https://www.berkshireeagle.com/news/local/elon-musk-trump-government-overreach-democracy-threat/article_b6ee0100-e7ee-11ef-833f-2708b79572dd.html https://www.berkshireeagle.com/news/local/elon-musk-trump-go...
- nickburns 2y ago
  Just because it has no precedence does not unconstitutional it make. I agree with the majority of the rest of what you've said. No need for the 'you should carefully reread' snark. Not only am I the OP—but I've also passed a bar exam in my lifetime, which preparation included careful US constitutional law study.
  - sympil 2y ago
    I said you should reread it becuase you said “this is how the executive branch works” and the link shows that it is indeed not how it works since Elon does not have the consent of the Senate and his position was not established by Congress or the Constitution. It was a polite way of saying you are wrong. Just because it has no precedence does not unconstitutional it make. Of course not. I did not say or imply otherwise. I said much of our system relies on following political norms. For example, it would have been perfectly Constitional for the last Congress to have removed the entire Supreme Court and replaced the justices. Such a constitutionally valid move would have had very bad implications.
    - nickburns 2y ago
      "[The POTUS] shall have Power [ . . ] and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint [ . . . ] all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."[1] At present Elon's position within the executive branch does not actually nor historically (for obvious reasons) require "Advice and Consent of the Senate", because no one that's part of DOGE, Elon included, is currently constitutionally interpreted to be an "Officer of the United States."[2] Nor has Congress bestowed upon the POTUS the exclusive authority to nominate and appoint whatever Elon's position is without their advice and conset. That's what the after-the-colon part is all about: whether or not the appointment of any "such inferior Officer"[3] whose position is not otherwise expressly provided for (like Elon's) is vested by an act of Congress in the POTUS not requiring their advice and consent—not whether or not any such position is actually 'established by Congress' as you say. That's exactly the point: Congress derives no appointment power from the Appointments Clause. Their role is limited to providing either constitutionally-required advice and consent, or vesting a direct appointment power not requiring their advice and consent in the POTUS. That being said, if the executive branch does something novel, like create and appoint thereto a position (or even an entire department) that didn't exist previously, then certainly that act may be ripe for constitutional challenge under the Appointments Clause. That is squarely one of the primary constiutional issues with what Elon and DOGE are doing, and that would be squarely for the SCOTUS to interpret. Just curious since I don't think I've heard this argument before—from where in the Constitution do you interpret that "it would have been perfectly Constitutional for the last Congress to have removed the entire Supreme Court and replaced the justices"? [1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/#article-2-section-2-clause-2 https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/#ar... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer_of_the_United_States [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointments_Clause#Appointment_of_inferior_officers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointments_Clause#Appointmen...