3 ms·

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 establis

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?
- intended 2y ago
  Because the republicans punish their own when they reach out to support bipartisan efforts. Even right now, congressmen have been threatened with being primaries if they don’t toe the line. There has been multiple decades of very public efforts to degrade and break the American system. Ever since watergate. Congress was broken.
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    I don't disagree with you, and neither would the Founding Fathers. In fact they were even opposed to the concept of political parties, but the power/convenience they enable means that lasted all of 5 seconds. But I would say that Congressmen being threatened with being primaried if they do unpopular things is literally the entire point of representative democracy. I think the question is when that pressure to obey is coming from the people and when it's instead coming from the party. In the ideal scenario the party and the people (at least the constituency) would be in lockstep. In any case term limits would help. If you're going to be out of office in at most two terms, it eliminates any point about sacrificing your values for some sort of long-term favor/benefit with the party.
    - intended 2y ago
      Why this conversation, where it seems like these things are mysterious? Post watergate, Conservatives built FOX, they laid out their plan to break the american system, and take over to push their agenda. No one took it seriously, and now when its happening, people are still unable to look at it. You have the pantomine of a party. They have debates. They have primaries. They have a media organization which is 'independent'.
- 2y ago
snowwrestler 2y ago
We’re not “missing” anything, your interpretation of the Constitution is incorrect. You may want to scroll up and read Article I, which constrains Article II (that’s why it comes first). Your understanding of Chevron deference is also incorrect, for what it’s worth.
- gottorf 2y ago
  > You may want to scroll up and read Article I, which constrains Article II (that’s why it comes first) What in Article I imposes constraints on the presidency? It's almost all about the legislature itself, and hardly mentions the executive. Specifically, I don't see anything that lends credence to the idea that Congress can control the workings of executive departments.
  - snowwrestler 2y ago
    Article I defines the powers of Congress. Having been assigned to Congress, those powers are not available to the president. Instead, the president is responsible for faithfully executing the laws. So if the law defines how an agency is staffed and makes policy, the president is bound by that. If this seems like an imposition upon the president, please remember that the president agrees to these impositions in advance by signing the laws.
    - gottorf 2y ago
      > if the law defines how an agency is staffed and makes policy Strongly contingent upon this, right? Wasn't the whole "administrative state" / "Chevron deference" argument that Congress did the bare minimum in defining what an executive agency is supposed to do, left it up to the executive to direct it as it sees fit? And worse, the supposedly apolitical career civil servants in charge of these agencies may from time to time thwart the will of the democratically elected head of the executive? Where is the people's recourse then?
      - snowwrestler 2y ago
IsTom 2y ago
> this applies to the executive branch So he gets to tell police what the law is and who to arrest within the "law" that he proclaimed.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
You're misunderstanding the EO. It has nothing to do with the Chevron deference (and you are also misunderstanding the impact of the 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?

intended 2y ago
Because the republicans punish their own when they reach out to support bipartisan efforts. Even right now, congressmen have been threatened with being primaries if they don’t toe the line. There has been multiple decades of very public efforts to degrade and break the American system. Ever since watergate. Congress was broken.
- somenameforme 2y ago
  I don't disagree with you, and neither would the Founding Fathers. In fact they were even opposed to the concept of political parties, but the power/convenience they enable means that lasted all of 5 seconds. But I would say that Congressmen being threatened with being primaried if they do unpopular things is literally the entire point of representative democracy. I think the question is when that pressure to obey is coming from the people and when it's instead coming from the party. In the ideal scenario the party and the people (at least the constituency) would be in lockstep. In any case term limits would help. If you're going to be out of office in at most two terms, it eliminates any point about sacrificing your values for some sort of long-term favor/benefit with the party.
  - intended 2y ago
    Why this conversation, where it seems like these things are mysterious? Post watergate, Conservatives built FOX, they laid out their plan to break the american system, and take over to push their agenda. No one took it seriously, and now when its happening, people are still unable to look at it. You have the pantomine of a party. They have debates. They have primaries. They have a media organization which is 'independent'.
2y ago

snowwrestler 2y ago

We’re not “missing” anything, your interpretation of the Constitution is incorrect. You may want to scroll up and read Article I, which constrains Article II (that’s why it comes first). Your understanding of Chevron deference is also incorrect, for what it’s worth.

gottorf 2y ago
> You may want to scroll up and read Article I, which constrains Article II (that’s why it comes first) What in Article I imposes constraints on the presidency? It's almost all about the legislature itself, and hardly mentions the executive. Specifically, I don't see anything that lends credence to the idea that Congress can control the workings of executive departments.
- snowwrestler 2y ago
  Article I defines the powers of Congress. Having been assigned to Congress, those powers are not available to the president. Instead, the president is responsible for faithfully executing the laws. So if the law defines how an agency is staffed and makes policy, the president is bound by that. If this seems like an imposition upon the president, please remember that the president agrees to these impositions in advance by signing the laws.
  - gottorf 2y ago
    > if the law defines how an agency is staffed and makes policy Strongly contingent upon this, right? Wasn't the whole "administrative state" / "Chevron deference" argument that Congress did the bare minimum in defining what an executive agency is supposed to do, left it up to the executive to direct it as it sees fit? And worse, the supposedly apolitical career civil servants in charge of these agencies may from time to time thwart the will of the democratically elected head of the executive? Where is the people's recourse then?
    - snowwrestler 2y ago

IsTom 2y ago

> this applies to the executive branch So he gets to tell police what the law is and who to arrest within the "law" that he proclaimed.

insane_dreamer 2y ago

You're misunderstanding the EO. It has nothing to do with the Chevron deference (and you are also misunderstanding the impact of the Chevron deference)