4 ms·

This will probably get flagged, but if you read this, spent a few minutes trying to understand the gravity of this specific EO. Every federal employee even in i

This will probably get flagged, but if you read this, spent a few minutes trying to understand the gravity of this specific EO. Every federal employee even in independent agents must and will jump when Trump says so. Even if he asks them to do something illegal (close the congress! Jail a democrat!), they must follow his orders. Because HIS interpretation of the law cannot be superseded.

Ancapistani 2y ago
If he wanted to fire anyone who disagreed with him, this EO wouldn’t have been necessary. With very few exceptions, executive branch employees serve at the pleasure of the President. This is how it is, how it has been, and is entirely consistent with the Constitution. So, if not that, then why issue this EO? First of all, it’s a statement: “Resistance to this agenda from within the executive branch will not be effective” Secondly, it helps ensure that when the President issues a statement, it’s not immediately met with bureaucrats making statements to the contrary.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  > If he wanted to fire anyone who disagreed with him, this EO wouldn’t have been necessary. Nonsense! This is the exact opposite! This is EO shows Trump trying even harder to fire all the people who refuse to go along with his crimes. He is asserting that when the Judicial branch concludes his firings are illegal, he's going to ignore it, and then fire anyone else who refuses to help him illegally fire people. It's the democracy-destroying version of a Monty Python sketch: The people who followed the law have been sacked. The people who didn't sack the people who followed the law have also been sacked.
  - Ancapistani 2y ago
    > He is asserting that when the Judicial concludes his firings are illegal, he's going to ignore it, and fire anyone else who refuses to help him illegally fire people. Where?
    - sangnoir 2y ago
      "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"
      - Ancapistani 2y ago
        Immediately succeeded by “, 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.” … and preceded by “The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch” Nothing in that says anything about countermanding a judicial ruling. If anything, it says that the President should set the strategy during litigation rather than one federal case making one argument while another makes a contradictory argument in reference to the same law.
    - kelnos 2y ago
      Obviously he's not literally saying that, but I think it's clear that this is where all of it is going to go.
- EasyMark 2y ago
  You’re wrong, many jobs are protected by congressional law. The executive branch can’t do just anything he wants. Sure some agencies he can but now all. This shit was decided a long time ago and there are several laws covering it. Congress is not doing their job and impeaching and firing this president. GOP don’t care if he’s a criminal as long as he is their criminal
grandempire 2y ago
What is an “independent agency”? Which branch of the government is that a part of? Which electoral representative do they report to?
- KittenInABox 2y ago
  I dunno, it makes sense that the federal branch that manages interest rates is independent of the president. Didn't we have a whole thing where Trump couldn't force rate increases or decreases back in 2020? Do we really want Trump to declare interest rate changes via tweeting or whatever? What about things like drug approvals? I don't want Trump to ban certain drugs just because they didn't donate to his campaign. I don't want Trump to approve Elon Musk's brain chips just because Musk told him to.
  - grandempire 2y ago
    It makes sense that we don’t elect a fed chairmen, but if the fed chairmen doesn’t report to any elected official then where do they get their authority? Supreme Court Judges are appointed by elected officials, but then don’t report to anyone. Maybe a fed chairmen is like that? But there is no constitutional office like that. Surely congress can’t make up offices which are then untouchable? I don’t want trump playing transactional games with the FDA either, but I don’t see how that can be balanced with the powers. He is the chief executive. I mentioned in another comment that one angle that would make more sense than arguing that agencies are “independent” is to argue that trump is not enforcing the law already written by congress, so taking away the power of the legislature. That seems like a more fruitful take.
    - KittenInABox 2y ago
      > It makes sense that we don’t elect a fed chairmen, but if the fed chairmen doesn’t report to any elected official then where do they get their authority? Congress put in a process for a fed chairman to be appointed in a way that jointly incorporates president, house and senate. Similarly firing them also needs joint cooperation, then the people have some say by electing/unelecting a congress or president that fucks it up. Same for FDA, USPS, etc etc. I definitely want a formalized process to hire and fire these guys and not just up to whims of individual executives.

Ancapistani 2y ago

If he wanted to fire anyone who disagreed with him, this EO wouldn’t have been necessary. With very few exceptions, executive branch employees serve at the pleasure of the President. This is how it is, how it has been, and is entirely consistent with the Constitution. So, if not that, then why issue this EO? First of all, it’s a statement: “Resistance to this agenda from within the executive branch will not be effective” Secondly, it helps ensure that when the President issues a statement, it’s not immediately met with bureaucrats making statements to the contrary.

Terr_ 2y ago
> If he wanted to fire anyone who disagreed with him, this EO wouldn’t have been necessary. Nonsense! This is the exact opposite! This is EO shows Trump trying even harder to fire all the people who refuse to go along with his crimes. He is asserting that when the Judicial branch concludes his firings are illegal, he's going to ignore it, and then fire anyone else who refuses to help him illegally fire people. It's the democracy-destroying version of a Monty Python sketch: The people who followed the law have been sacked. The people who didn't sack the people who followed the law have also been sacked.
- Ancapistani 2y ago
  > He is asserting that when the Judicial concludes his firings are illegal, he's going to ignore it, and fire anyone else who refuses to help him illegally fire people. Where?
  - sangnoir 2y ago
    "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"
    - Ancapistani 2y ago
      Immediately succeeded by “, 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.” … and preceded by “The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch” Nothing in that says anything about countermanding a judicial ruling. If anything, it says that the President should set the strategy during litigation rather than one federal case making one argument while another makes a contradictory argument in reference to the same law.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    Obviously he's not literally saying that, but I think it's clear that this is where all of it is going to go.
EasyMark 2y ago
You’re wrong, many jobs are protected by congressional law. The executive branch can’t do just anything he wants. Sure some agencies he can but now all. This shit was decided a long time ago and there are several laws covering it. Congress is not doing their job and impeaching and firing this president. GOP don’t care if he’s a criminal as long as he is their criminal

grandempire 2y ago

What is an “independent agency”? Which branch of the government is that a part of? Which electoral representative do they report to?

KittenInABox 2y ago
I dunno, it makes sense that the federal branch that manages interest rates is independent of the president. Didn't we have a whole thing where Trump couldn't force rate increases or decreases back in 2020? Do we really want Trump to declare interest rate changes via tweeting or whatever? What about things like drug approvals? I don't want Trump to ban certain drugs just because they didn't donate to his campaign. I don't want Trump to approve Elon Musk's brain chips just because Musk told him to.
- grandempire 2y ago
  It makes sense that we don’t elect a fed chairmen, but if the fed chairmen doesn’t report to any elected official then where do they get their authority? Supreme Court Judges are appointed by elected officials, but then don’t report to anyone. Maybe a fed chairmen is like that? But there is no constitutional office like that. Surely congress can’t make up offices which are then untouchable? I don’t want trump playing transactional games with the FDA either, but I don’t see how that can be balanced with the powers. He is the chief executive. I mentioned in another comment that one angle that would make more sense than arguing that agencies are “independent” is to argue that trump is not enforcing the law already written by congress, so taking away the power of the legislature. That seems like a more fruitful take.
  - KittenInABox 2y ago
    > It makes sense that we don’t elect a fed chairmen, but if the fed chairmen doesn’t report to any elected official then where do they get their authority? Congress put in a process for a fed chairman to be appointed in a way that jointly incorporates president, house and senate. Similarly firing them also needs joint cooperation, then the people have some say by electing/unelecting a congress or president that fucks it up. Same for FDA, USPS, etc etc. I definitely want a formalized process to hire and fire these guys and not just up to whims of individual executives.