10 ms·

“ Sec. 7. Rules of Conduct Guiding Federal Employees’ Interpretation of the Law. The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervisio

“ Sec. 7. Rules of Conduct Guiding Federal Employees’ Interpretation of the Law. The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch. The President and the Attorney General’s opinions on questions of law are controlling on all employees in the conduct of their official duties. No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law, including but not limited to the issuance of regulations, guidance, and positions advanced in litigation, unless authorized to do so by the President or in writing by the Attorney General.” This does not bode well for that country’s democracy.

nathanaldensr 2y ago
This has nothing to do with "democracy" in any way. This is the equivalent of a CEO publishing a memo telling employees how to interpret things that happen outside of the company (e.g., new laws, social trends, etc.) It's the CEO's job to align their workforce to have the same interpretation of information. Federal judges can still rule on issues brought before them but the judges have to provide Constitutional- or precedent-related rulings. Why are Americans acting so surprised that the President has this authority? That is his job, as it was for all presidents before him. This executive order is saying that the "employees under the CEO" do not have the authority to usurp the "CEO's" interpretations of law. Checks and balances still apply, of course; Congress can intervene if the President is acting in ways that Congress doesn't like. That's what impeachment is for--and impeachment is a process regardless of whether the President is issuing "illegal" executive orders or doing something else like what Nixon did. The process works; blame Congress for not holding the President accountable in the ways outlined by the Constitution.
- zzleeper 2y ago
  Because people in independent agencies are by act protected from exactly these things. Think for a bit, why were they not just called "agencies"? And for all the stupidity of congress, if the fail to protect against a self-coup, that doesn't make it any less likely.
- unethical_ban 2y ago
  If you ignore all context, their support of the unitary executive (anti-american) theory, and the recent comments that "if a president does it, it isn't breaking the law" and "going against the will of the president is going against the will of the people"... If you ignore ALL of that then you have a talking point worth debating.
- kmos17 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - timacles 2y ago
    I've been seeing posts like this all over hacker news. They appear to be structured like rational arguments but really make no logical sense. I have no doubt that these people know exactly what they are doing, and are intentionally lying and spreading these "very reasonable" arguments as a blueprint for others to copy. Their goal is to fluster and confuse the situation.
    - unethical_ban 2y ago
      It may be the case. I also genuinely think some people are not paying attention and think in a vacuum. They fail to see the malice and the words and writings from these people wanting to destroy the function of the government. But hey, the president is like a CEO, right?
      - hayst4ck 2y ago
        The problem with the CEO as president metaphor is that the CEO of a company is functionally a dictator. If the company is private, then there are no checks on the CEO at all. Calling someone a dictator is an accusation, something every American was taught was wrong in school. Calling someone a CEO is a compliment, something our collective media has taught us to aspire to. CEO is just a softer word that makes submission easier, or even logical, while it hides the truth of that power structure which is functionally the same for both. "The CEO metaphor re-frames political rule as a business operation, which makes executive overreach appear logical rather than dangerous." This is a very effective manipulation technique. https://commonslibrary.org/frame-the-debate-insights-from-dont-think-of-an-elephant/ https://commonslibrary.org/frame-the-debate-insights-from-do...
      - saalweachter 2y ago
        A large component of the right-wing media campaign for the last, well, all of my life has also been to normalize their actions by accusing The Other Side of doing it first. "Activist judges" was the most notable one.
- hayst4ck 2y ago
  I have a puzzle for you: Let's say we have a democracy where the only rule is highest vote wins. Let's say 51% of the people vote to enslave/oppress the other 49%. Maybe they vote for literal chattel slavery. Maybe they vote for healthcare for themselves but not the others. Maybe they vote to tax the others at the maximum possible or implement tax policies that dis-proportionally affect the 49%. Maybe they vote the 49% cannot own homes and therefore must pay rent to a landlord. Maybe they vote that the 49% must register for the draft, but not them. Maybe they vote that the 49% aren't eligible for public school while they are. Maybe they vote that the 49% is not able to own stock or register for a company. Let's pretend those are legal, it is definitely possible. Slavery at one point was constitutionally allowed. Is that a Democracy? A Liberal Democracy? A Democratic Republic? A Constitutional Democratic Republic if the law were enshrined on paper? Would you want to live in that country? Would you want to live in that country if you were in the 49%? What is the key ingredient that makes something a "Democracy" rather than tyranny of the majority, "mob rule," or "might makes right"?
  - satvikpendem 2y ago
    Well, it is a democracy, the key being that the majority of people voted for some law. Whether you'd want to live in the country is a different story. Sometimes, democracies are not always the best form of government, they are as susceptible to systemic issues as any other form of government.
    - Juliate 2y ago
      So you do not understand what a democracy is and how it works. Balance of the three branches of government and the rule of law and protection of minorities are the complementary requirements to the majority vote, to qualify for a democracy.
      - satvikpendem 2y ago
        In the simplest sense of the word, none of that is needed. Athens had such a democracy, where a majority of people made a decision so. You are putting more stipulations on the word than are strictly necessary, hence why I said the democracy examples you gave would not be great places to live in.
somenameforme 2y ago
I think a lot of people that are freaking out are missing that this applies to the executive branch, over whom the President has already perfectly well established. Literally the first statement of article 2 of the US Constitution (which lays out the power/rules for the executive branch) is "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." The main point of this executive order is likely part of the ongoing issues related to the chevron deference. [1] Chevron deference [1] was a (IMO very weird) legal standard that was overturned in 2024. It required the judicial to completely defer to the executive branch in cases where the laws around executive departments (generally relating to the the limits of their regulatory power/authority) were ambiguous. When this was overturned, the judiciary regained their independence and were once again able to hear and independently judge cases around these executive departments. This order is now stating that the executive branch departments themselves will no longer be independently interpreting the law at all, but instead defer to the legal opinions of the head of the executive. The order itself also makes it clear that it does not allow rejecting or unreasonably redefining the laws applying to the various departments - instead the main issue is where potential ambiguities and related limits/allowances will be determined. And of course those determinations could then be challenged by either the judiciary or the legislative (by passing overriding laws). The short version of this is "Executive departments will now be directly accountable to all three branches of government - executive, legislative, and judicial." [1] - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference
- amalcon 2y ago
  This is just a statement of the unitary executive theory. Unitary executive theory is controversial, and the controversy there did not (until, oh about last month) align with party lines.
- lazide 2y ago
  No - it’s a statement that the executive branch will (as a matter of policy) ignore Judicial and Congressional oversight. Unless it wants it, anyway.
- dartos 2y ago
  > It required the judicial to completely defer to the executive branch in cases where the laws around executive departments (generally relating to the the limits of their regulatory power/authority) were ambiguous. Why doesn’t congress do its job and write laws that do things?

nathanaldensr 2y ago

This has nothing to do with "democracy" in any way. This is the equivalent of a CEO publishing a memo telling employees how to interpret things that happen outside of the company (e.g., new laws, social trends, etc.) It's the CEO's job to align their workforce to have the same interpretation of information. Federal judges can still rule on issues brought before them but the judges have to provide Constitutional- or precedent-related rulings. Why are Americans acting so surprised that the President has this authority? That is his job, as it was for all presidents before him. This executive order is saying that the "employees under the CEO" do not have the authority to usurp the "CEO's" interpretations of law. Checks and balances still apply, of course; Congress can intervene if the President is acting in ways that Congress doesn't like. That's what impeachment is for--and impeachment is a process regardless of whether the President is issuing "illegal" executive orders or doing something else like what Nixon did. The process works; blame Congress for not holding the President accountable in the ways outlined by the Constitution.

zzleeper 2y ago
Because people in independent agencies are by act protected from exactly these things. Think for a bit, why were they not just called "agencies"? And for all the stupidity of congress, if the fail to protect against a self-coup, that doesn't make it any less likely.
unethical_ban 2y ago
If you ignore all context, their support of the unitary executive (anti-american) theory, and the recent comments that "if a president does it, it isn't breaking the law" and "going against the will of the president is going against the will of the people"... If you ignore ALL of that then you have a talking point worth debating.
kmos17 2y ago
[flagged]
- timacles 2y ago
  I've been seeing posts like this all over hacker news. They appear to be structured like rational arguments but really make no logical sense. I have no doubt that these people know exactly what they are doing, and are intentionally lying and spreading these "very reasonable" arguments as a blueprint for others to copy. Their goal is to fluster and confuse the situation.
  - unethical_ban 2y ago
    It may be the case. I also genuinely think some people are not paying attention and think in a vacuum. They fail to see the malice and the words and writings from these people wanting to destroy the function of the government. But hey, the president is like a CEO, right?
    - hayst4ck 2y ago
      The problem with the CEO as president metaphor is that the CEO of a company is functionally a dictator. If the company is private, then there are no checks on the CEO at all. Calling someone a dictator is an accusation, something every American was taught was wrong in school. Calling someone a CEO is a compliment, something our collective media has taught us to aspire to. CEO is just a softer word that makes submission easier, or even logical, while it hides the truth of that power structure which is functionally the same for both. "The CEO metaphor re-frames political rule as a business operation, which makes executive overreach appear logical rather than dangerous." This is a very effective manipulation technique. https://commonslibrary.org/frame-the-debate-insights-from-dont-think-of-an-elephant/ https://commonslibrary.org/frame-the-debate-insights-from-do...
    - saalweachter 2y ago
      A large component of the right-wing media campaign for the last, well, all of my life has also been to normalize their actions by accusing The Other Side of doing it first. "Activist judges" was the most notable one.
hayst4ck 2y ago
I have a puzzle for you: Let's say we have a democracy where the only rule is highest vote wins. Let's say 51% of the people vote to enslave/oppress the other 49%. Maybe they vote for literal chattel slavery. Maybe they vote for healthcare for themselves but not the others. Maybe they vote to tax the others at the maximum possible or implement tax policies that dis-proportionally affect the 49%. Maybe they vote the 49% cannot own homes and therefore must pay rent to a landlord. Maybe they vote that the 49% must register for the draft, but not them. Maybe they vote that the 49% aren't eligible for public school while they are. Maybe they vote that the 49% is not able to own stock or register for a company. Let's pretend those are legal, it is definitely possible. Slavery at one point was constitutionally allowed. Is that a Democracy? A Liberal Democracy? A Democratic Republic? A Constitutional Democratic Republic if the law were enshrined on paper? Would you want to live in that country? Would you want to live in that country if you were in the 49%? What is the key ingredient that makes something a "Democracy" rather than tyranny of the majority, "mob rule," or "might makes right"?
- satvikpendem 2y ago
  Well, it is a democracy, the key being that the majority of people voted for some law. Whether you'd want to live in the country is a different story. Sometimes, democracies are not always the best form of government, they are as susceptible to systemic issues as any other form of government.
  - Juliate 2y ago
    So you do not understand what a democracy is and how it works. Balance of the three branches of government and the rule of law and protection of minorities are the complementary requirements to the majority vote, to qualify for a democracy.
    - satvikpendem 2y ago
      In the simplest sense of the word, none of that is needed. Athens had such a democracy, where a majority of people made a decision so. You are putting more stipulations on the word than are strictly necessary, hence why I said the democracy examples you gave would not be great places to live in.

somenameforme 2y ago

I think a lot of people that are freaking out are missing that this applies to the executive branch, over whom the President has already perfectly well established. Literally the first statement of article 2 of the US Constitution (which lays out the power/rules for the executive branch) is "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." The main point of this executive order is likely part of the ongoing issues related to the chevron deference. [1] Chevron deference [1] was a (IMO very weird) legal standard that was overturned in 2024. It required the judicial to completely defer to the executive branch in cases where the laws around executive departments (generally relating to the the limits of their regulatory power/authority) were ambiguous. When this was overturned, the judiciary regained their independence and were once again able to hear and independently judge cases around these executive departments. This order is now stating that the executive branch departments themselves will no longer be independently interpreting the law at all, but instead defer to the legal opinions of the head of the executive. The order itself also makes it clear that it does not allow rejecting or unreasonably redefining the laws applying to the various departments - instead the main issue is where potential ambiguities and related limits/allowances will be determined. And of course those determinations could then be challenged by either the judiciary or the legislative (by passing overriding laws). The short version of this is "Executive departments will now be directly accountable to all three branches of government - executive, legislative, and judicial." [1] - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference

amalcon 2y ago
This is just a statement of the unitary executive theory. Unitary executive theory is controversial, and the controversy there did not (until, oh about last month) align with party lines.
lazide 2y ago
No - it’s a statement that the executive branch will (as a matter of policy) ignore Judicial and Congressional oversight. Unless it wants it, anyway.
dartos 2y ago
> It required the judicial to completely defer to the executive branch in cases where the laws around executive departments (generally relating to the the limits of their regulatory power/authority) were ambiguous. Why doesn’t congress do its job and write laws that do things?