3 ms·

I don't see why the supreme court couldn't rule a lot of these departments unconstitutional. The justification for many of them is flimsy at best, and seems to

I don't see why the supreme court couldn't rule a lot of these departments unconstitutional. The justification for many of them is flimsy at best, and seems to be to be in direct contradiction to the "only those rights specifically enumerated" deal.

fc417fc802 2y ago
I wouldn't hold my breath for SCOTUS overturning precedence regarding the interstate commerce clause.
_heimdall 2y ago
I don't actually think the question is whether a strong argument could be made there. There's no political will to challenge it.
bwestergard 2y ago
"I don't see why the supreme court couldn't rule a lot of these departments unconstitutional." Because they are, in fact, obviously constitutional. The mechanism for eliminating them contemplated by the constitution is for congress to pass a law eliminating them. If you disagree with my view on this, perhaps you'll be persuaded by voluminous case law over decades upholding the constitutionality of all of these Federal government agencies in face of challenges of precisely the kind you're motioning toward.
- ModernMech 2y ago
  > If you disagree with my view on this, perhaps you'll be persuaded At this point I feel like anyone who disagrees with this should explain how things work in the alternative. If the executive can just unilaterally declare laws invalid, how does anything get done? Why pass laws at all?
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    The executive doesn't have to declare a law invalid here. From where I sit the question is whether a budget approved by congress must be spent or should be considered a "do not exceed" spending cap. There is gray area when Congress says we need a department to manage our education system, for example, and sets a budget. Congress is only approving the spending there, at least to me that means it can be spent but doesn't have to be spent in full. Now it is the executive branch's job to execute on that department. I think it would be a stretch for them to just not create the department. Their job is to properly and effectively implement what congress asked for though, and it is reasonable for someone coming in to say that what was done in the past isn't meeting Congress's request. That isn't to say Trump is making a legitimate or reasoned argument in that vein, but the power is there at which point you have a weird legal battle attempting to decide who can make a better case for the success of any specific department. With congress defining little to no metrics for success that battle seems largely to be in the eye of the beholder.
    - bwestergard 2y ago
      "From where I sit the question is whether a budget approved by congress must be spent or should be considered a "do not exceed" spending cap. There is gray area when Congress says we need a department to manage our education system, for example, and sets a budget. Congress is only approving the spending there, at least to me that means it can be spent but doesn't have to be spent in full." You are welcome to imagine an alternate legal system from first principles, but please do not present it as U.S. law. The question of whether president has to "[spend] in full" has been settled by legislation and litigation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974#Impoundment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impou...
    - ModernMech 2y ago
      Keep going. If the executive doesn't have to spend all the money, why do they have to spend any of the money at all? > Their job is to properly and effectively implement what congress asked for though No it is not. Their job as laid out in the Constitution is to faithfully implement the laws. Not "properly and effectively", where what's proper and effective are determined by them. "Faithfully" is the word used in the Constitution. They are to implement the laws for Congress, and if the executive finds those laws sloppy and wasteful and not proper, he doesn't get to just not do them. Again, I ask you, why pass laws at all if the executive can just decide to not do them? > but the power is there at which point you have a weird legal battle attempting to decide who can make a better case for the success of any specific department There is no battle -- it's there in a plain reading of the Constitution, and the impoundment act of 1974 makes explicit. And even what you say is true, there should be more of a process for the Executive branch to do these things; because the power is so broad, in the spirit of checks and balances they should be conferring with the Congress rather than asserting blanket and unchecked authority.

fc417fc802 2y ago

I wouldn't hold my breath for SCOTUS overturning precedence regarding the interstate commerce clause.

_heimdall 2y ago

I don't actually think the question is whether a strong argument could be made there. There's no political will to challenge it.

bwestergard 2y ago

"I don't see why the supreme court couldn't rule a lot of these departments unconstitutional." Because they are, in fact, obviously constitutional. The mechanism for eliminating them contemplated by the constitution is for congress to pass a law eliminating them. If you disagree with my view on this, perhaps you'll be persuaded by voluminous case law over decades upholding the constitutionality of all of these Federal government agencies in face of challenges of precisely the kind you're motioning toward.

ModernMech 2y ago
> If you disagree with my view on this, perhaps you'll be persuaded At this point I feel like anyone who disagrees with this should explain how things work in the alternative. If the executive can just unilaterally declare laws invalid, how does anything get done? Why pass laws at all?
- _heimdall 2y ago
  The executive doesn't have to declare a law invalid here. From where I sit the question is whether a budget approved by congress must be spent or should be considered a "do not exceed" spending cap. There is gray area when Congress says we need a department to manage our education system, for example, and sets a budget. Congress is only approving the spending there, at least to me that means it can be spent but doesn't have to be spent in full. Now it is the executive branch's job to execute on that department. I think it would be a stretch for them to just not create the department. Their job is to properly and effectively implement what congress asked for though, and it is reasonable for someone coming in to say that what was done in the past isn't meeting Congress's request. That isn't to say Trump is making a legitimate or reasoned argument in that vein, but the power is there at which point you have a weird legal battle attempting to decide who can make a better case for the success of any specific department. With congress defining little to no metrics for success that battle seems largely to be in the eye of the beholder.
  - bwestergard 2y ago
    "From where I sit the question is whether a budget approved by congress must be spent or should be considered a "do not exceed" spending cap. There is gray area when Congress says we need a department to manage our education system, for example, and sets a budget. Congress is only approving the spending there, at least to me that means it can be spent but doesn't have to be spent in full." You are welcome to imagine an alternate legal system from first principles, but please do not present it as U.S. law. The question of whether president has to "[spend] in full" has been settled by legislation and litigation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974#Impoundment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impou...
  - ModernMech 2y ago
    Keep going. If the executive doesn't have to spend all the money, why do they have to spend any of the money at all? > Their job is to properly and effectively implement what congress asked for though No it is not. Their job as laid out in the Constitution is to faithfully implement the laws. Not "properly and effectively", where what's proper and effective are determined by them. "Faithfully" is the word used in the Constitution. They are to implement the laws for Congress, and if the executive finds those laws sloppy and wasteful and not proper, he doesn't get to just not do them. Again, I ask you, why pass laws at all if the executive can just decide to not do them? > but the power is there at which point you have a weird legal battle attempting to decide who can make a better case for the success of any specific department There is no battle -- it's there in a plain reading of the Constitution, and the impoundment act of 1974 makes explicit. And even what you say is true, there should be more of a process for the Executive branch to do these things; because the power is so broad, in the spirit of checks and balances they should be conferring with the Congress rather than asserting blanket and unchecked authority.