4 ms·

> You know a good chunk of Republicans in Congress knows these many of these cuts are a mix of illegal, unconstitutional or dangerous to national security When

by koolba 2y ago

> You know a good chunk of Republicans in Congress knows these many of these cuts are a mix of illegal, unconstitutional or dangerous to national security When the dust settles on the buckshot of related cases and they make their way to the SCOTUS, it will be confirmed that the executive branch has unilateral power to fire people working in the executive branch. If it’s constitutional, it’s de facto legal. And I think it will be at least 7-2 as well.

adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
The executive branch has the power to fire people, but not to cut departments when those departments are established by congress.
eightysixfour 2y ago
Ahh yes, the constitutional power the executive has to say “I don’t like what the legislative signed into law and funded, so I just won’t do it.”
harimau777 2y ago
If "legal" just means "whatever the supreme court says it is" without regard to corruption or logic then the word legal has more or less lost any useful meaning.
- superb_dev 2y ago
  That’s always what the word legal has meant, at least in the US.
  - intermerda 2y ago
    Not always. Since around the time of Reagan, the word legal has meant to be whatever the conservative elites want. They have gone to great lengths to corrupt the highest courts in the country.
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      The "original sin" there was Roe v. Wade. A right to privacy gives you a right to an abortion? That was highly motivated reasoning, and everybody knew it. (7-2 decision, on a court with 7 liberals and 2 conservatives... what a surprise.) So conservatives said, all right, if that's the way the game is played, then we need to own the Supreme Court. And here we are. Don't act like the game started with Reagan. It didn't. It's just that the other side was thoroughly winning before then.
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        I think you should look up what kinds of cases were rejected in the 60's/70's before claiming "liberals started it". They weren't super radicalized back then as to only vote on their own lines. I argue conservatives started it with Citizens United. Thereby making the democracit process a game of who kisses the ring of the most billionaires.
dcrazy 2y ago
> it will be confirmed that the executive branch has unilateral power to fire people working in the executive branch. Do you hold the opinion that the Civil Service Reform Act is unconstitutional? What about the Reorganization Act of 1939? If the President can unilaterally fire any employee of the Executive Branch, why bother with Senate confirmation at all?
- koolba 2y ago
  > Do you hold the opinion that the Civil Service Reform Act is unconstitutional? What about the Reorganization Act of 1939? Of course it's unconstitutional. It's clearly outlined in Article 2 that the President has the power to appoint: >> He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and 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. Only judicial appointments are life terms and that's the only one outlined in Article 3. All other appointments are at the pleasure of the President. There's no mention of "Ambassador for Life" or "Minister until replacement is Senate confirmed" in the Constitution. For non-judicial appointments, the power to appoint includes the power to remove. > If the President can unilaterally fire any employee of the Executive Branch, why bother with Senate confirmation at all? To allow for autonomy of that individual at that agency. Otherwise the actions would need to roll up to the President directly requesting the said action via executive order. I see it as guardrails for when the Article 2 powers are being scaled out via long term delegation.
  - staticman2 2y ago
    Since "at the pleasure of the president" is not found in the constitution quoting the constitution does not advance your argument.
    - 2y ago
avidiax 2y ago
> it will be confirmed that the executive branch has unilateral power to fire people working in the executive branch I could see it playing out like this, except that you can't fire so many that the departmental mission enacted by congress is substantially or totally hindered. Fire any one particular person? Maybe. Fire everyone in a department? What power does congress have if that were allowed?
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
  The power of the purse, like always.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    Right, but if Congress allocates the money, and the executive won't spend it, then what? Then we have rules against impoundment. That has yet to work its way through the courts; we'll see if those rules survive and have any teeth.
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
      >...and the executive won't spend it, then what? Strict reading of the Constitution, nothing. Our government was not set up to be efficient, more the opposite. The Founders were distrustful of government, especially a federal government over their states, so they set up a government that wasn't good at doing things. Whether you and I still want that is a different question, but the ultimate legality of the congress not being able to compel the executive to take action seems pretty clear. >rules against impoundment this is congress making rules that the executive must do something, which again is not clear they have the authority to do
      - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        > ... which again is not clear they have the authority to do Those rules were passed in the 1970s. Has there been a Supreme Court decision on their validity? (Real question; I don't know.) But if the president can decide to not spend the money, how does Congress have the power of the purse?
convivialdingo 2y ago
You can thank Biden, actually. On the merits, this Court previously held that no provision of § 8468 prevented the plaintiffs' removal. See Mem. Op. at 7. First, the Court noted that “the power of removal from office is incident to the power of appointment” “absent a specific provision to the contrary.” Id. at 6 (quoting Carlucci v. Doe, 488 U.S. 93, 95 (1988) (citation omitted)). Second, the Court held that the plain text of § 8468(b), which provides only that Board members “serve for three years each” on staggered terms, does not meet that standard. Id. at 7. Third, the Court read Parsons v. United States, 167 U.S. 324 (1897), and Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926), to hold that term-of-office provisions, standing alone, do not confer removal protection. https://casetext.com/case/spicer-v-biden-1 https://casetext.com/case/spicer-v-biden-1
- dcrazy 2y ago
  There’s a big difference between presidential appointments and the rank and file of the civil service. (For what it’s worth, I also think we should seriously consider a constitutional amendment to prohibit the firing of political appointees, in exchange for all their terms being staggered.)
mimd 2y ago
Well, it will be really funny when the executive branch starts firing all the judiciaries security (USMS JSD, under DoJ) to save costs. But secondary outcomes have either not dawned or dissuaded the recent courts on their path to increasing executive power.
Sabinus 2y ago
So if Congress passes a law that a department must be created and has this budget and these powers and must do these things, but the President just refuses to hire anyone to staff it, you think that is legal?

by koolba 2y ago

adgjlsfhk1 2y ago

The executive branch has the power to fire people, but not to cut departments when those departments are established by congress.

eightysixfour 2y ago

Ahh yes, the constitutional power the executive has to say “I don’t like what the legislative signed into law and funded, so I just won’t do it.”

harimau777 2y ago

If "legal" just means "whatever the supreme court says it is" without regard to corruption or logic then the word legal has more or less lost any useful meaning.

superb_dev 2y ago
That’s always what the word legal has meant, at least in the US.
- intermerda 2y ago
  Not always. Since around the time of Reagan, the word legal has meant to be whatever the conservative elites want. They have gone to great lengths to corrupt the highest courts in the country.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    The "original sin" there was Roe v. Wade. A right to privacy gives you a right to an abortion? That was highly motivated reasoning, and everybody knew it. (7-2 decision, on a court with 7 liberals and 2 conservatives... what a surprise.) So conservatives said, all right, if that's the way the game is played, then we need to own the Supreme Court. And here we are. Don't act like the game started with Reagan. It didn't. It's just that the other side was thoroughly winning before then.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      I think you should look up what kinds of cases were rejected in the 60's/70's before claiming "liberals started it". They weren't super radicalized back then as to only vote on their own lines. I argue conservatives started it with Citizens United. Thereby making the democracit process a game of who kisses the ring of the most billionaires.

dcrazy 2y ago

> it will be confirmed that the executive branch has unilateral power to fire people working in the executive branch. Do you hold the opinion that the Civil Service Reform Act is unconstitutional? What about the Reorganization Act of 1939? If the President can unilaterally fire any employee of the Executive Branch, why bother with Senate confirmation at all?

koolba 2y ago
> Do you hold the opinion that the Civil Service Reform Act is unconstitutional? What about the Reorganization Act of 1939? Of course it's unconstitutional. It's clearly outlined in Article 2 that the President has the power to appoint: >> He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and 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. Only judicial appointments are life terms and that's the only one outlined in Article 3. All other appointments are at the pleasure of the President. There's no mention of "Ambassador for Life" or "Minister until replacement is Senate confirmed" in the Constitution. For non-judicial appointments, the power to appoint includes the power to remove. > If the President can unilaterally fire any employee of the Executive Branch, why bother with Senate confirmation at all? To allow for autonomy of that individual at that agency. Otherwise the actions would need to roll up to the President directly requesting the said action via executive order. I see it as guardrails for when the Article 2 powers are being scaled out via long term delegation.
- staticman2 2y ago
  Since "at the pleasure of the president" is not found in the constitution quoting the constitution does not advance your argument.
  - 2y ago

avidiax 2y ago

> it will be confirmed that the executive branch has unilateral power to fire people working in the executive branch I could see it playing out like this, except that you can't fire so many that the departmental mission enacted by congress is substantially or totally hindered. Fire any one particular person? Maybe. Fire everyone in a department? What power does congress have if that were allowed?

ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
The power of the purse, like always.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  Right, but if Congress allocates the money, and the executive won't spend it, then what? Then we have rules against impoundment. That has yet to work its way through the courts; we'll see if those rules survive and have any teeth.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
    >...and the executive won't spend it, then what? Strict reading of the Constitution, nothing. Our government was not set up to be efficient, more the opposite. The Founders were distrustful of government, especially a federal government over their states, so they set up a government that wasn't good at doing things. Whether you and I still want that is a different question, but the ultimate legality of the congress not being able to compel the executive to take action seems pretty clear. >rules against impoundment this is congress making rules that the executive must do something, which again is not clear they have the authority to do
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      > ... which again is not clear they have the authority to do Those rules were passed in the 1970s. Has there been a Supreme Court decision on their validity? (Real question; I don't know.) But if the president can decide to not spend the money, how does Congress have the power of the purse?

convivialdingo 2y ago

You can thank Biden, actually. On the merits, this Court previously held that no provision of § 8468 prevented the plaintiffs' removal. See Mem. Op. at 7. First, the Court noted that “the power of removal from office is incident to the power of appointment” “absent a specific provision to the contrary.” Id. at 6 (quoting Carlucci v. Doe, 488 U.S. 93, 95 (1988) (citation omitted)). Second, the Court held that the plain text of § 8468(b), which provides only that Board members “serve for three years each” on staggered terms, does not meet that standard. Id. at 7. Third, the Court read Parsons v. United States, 167 U.S. 324 (1897), and Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926), to hold that term-of-office provisions, standing alone, do not confer removal protection. https://casetext.com/case/spicer-v-biden-1 https://casetext.com/case/spicer-v-biden-1

dcrazy 2y ago
There’s a big difference between presidential appointments and the rank and file of the civil service. (For what it’s worth, I also think we should seriously consider a constitutional amendment to prohibit the firing of political appointees, in exchange for all their terms being staggered.)

mimd 2y ago

Well, it will be really funny when the executive branch starts firing all the judiciaries security (USMS JSD, under DoJ) to save costs. But secondary outcomes have either not dawned or dissuaded the recent courts on their path to increasing executive power.

Sabinus 2y ago

So if Congress passes a law that a department must be created and has this budget and these powers and must do these things, but the President just refuses to hire anyone to staff it, you think that is legal?