5 ms·

If your question is whether the “independent” agencies are Constitutional, the answer is yes. Congress makes the laws and the laws can constrain the behavior of

If your question is whether the “independent” agencies are Constitutional, the answer is yes. Congress makes the laws and the laws can constrain the behavior of the President. If the law says the President cannot fire someone, or interfere in an agency’s work, then the President cannot. So who are such agencies accountable to? Congress. Just like the president is accountable to Congress.

grandempire 2y ago
So your understanding is that these agencies are part of the legislative branch and the senate/house would have the power to do this? If it’s that clear will it be easy to take this to the Supreme Court?
- pas 2y ago
  They don't have to be part of any branch. The usual branches are descriptive concepts. (Or they can be part of the executive branch yet still not be part of the "unitary executive" part. The law allows for any kind of exemptions and special-casing.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory
  - grandempire 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - cowfriend 2y ago
      Friend, I think I see your concern, and I may have an answer. Most of the bureaucracy is apolitical. However, the heads and higher-ups of each agency are appointed by the currently in-office politicians. So the upper management is composed of political appointments. And like any other organization, the upper management has considerable discretion in setting priorities. re: "politically selective law enforcement" is not a good thing, because laws are one of the things that are supposed to constrain politicians.
    - ARandumGuy 2y ago
      They're not "accountable to nobody". Assuming they have the votes, congress can revoke any law, at any time, for any reason. And typically laws specifying the appointment of specific people also have provisions for removing that person. The reason for this is stability. Congress, businesses, international allies, and most US citizens typically don't want things to dramatically change every new presidential administration. And the primary way to ensure that stability is to make it so the same people are working in various government offices from administration to administration. And I think people are quickly learning why that stability is desirable, as the current administration attempts to dismantle it with no consideration for the consequences.
      - kelipso 2y ago
        I guess we are at the "deep state is good actually" stage of the process now.
        pyronik19 2y ago
        [dead]
        DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
        The deep state is why Rome survived so many crazy emperors.
        pas 2y ago
        what do you think the constitution is?
- snowwrestler 2y ago
  They are part of the executive branch, but the law governs and constrains the behavior of the executive in managing them. You can’t even say that Congress is solely the source of those constraints since the laws creating and governing these agencies were signed by… the president! Most of these agencies have already been challenged in court and the Constitutionality of their structure and governance affirmed.
  - grandempire 2y ago
    I agree. Taking trump to court for not carrying out existing law is a winning case. Saying he can’t replace X person because they are in an independent branch is not going to hold up. And I suspect they know that and want the court to rule on it. Unless someone can make an argument that they actually report to congress.
    - whamlastxmas 2y ago
      Part of the executive power in the US is that the president influences the judicial branch, and ultimately the judicial branch is going to determine who gets to do what. They do this in many ways, a big one being they can prioritize any case they want, and simply decline to even hear certain ones. So if the president wants to do something, congress pushes back and challenges it and it goes to court, the president can effectively “get away with it” as long as the judiciary is fine with it
      - kelipso 2y ago
        > Part of the executive power in the US is that the president influences the judicial branch How? Judicial branch is independent.
        Henchman21 2y ago
        Influence is not control?
        2y ago
whamlastxmas 2y ago
Congress can only make laws if they don’t infringe on the constitution. If they want laws that aren’t constitutional, they have to make constitutional amendments, which is probably never going to happen ever again because of how dysfunctional they are and have been for decades. The president has a lot of constitutional protection to run the executive branch, though obviously congress has ways to pass laws and influence that, too. The president isn’t accountable to congress but there are checks and balances both ways
twoodfin 2y ago
This is just flatly incorrect. Humphrey's Executor (which may not be long for this world as precedent, anyway) lays out specific cases where "for cause" requirements on termination are Constitutional, but otherwise the President's power to dismiss subordinate officers of the executive branch is absolute.
- ModernMech 2y ago
  The Court distinguished between executive officers and quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial officers. The Court held that the latter may be removed only with procedures consistent with statutory conditions enacted by Congress, but the former serve at the pleasure of the President and may be removed at his discretion. The Court ruled that the Federal Trade Commission was a quasi-legislative body because it adjudicated cases and promulgated rules. Thus, the President could not fire a member solely for political reasons. Therefore, Humphrey's firing was improper. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humphrey%27s_Executor_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humphrey%27s_Executor_v._Unite... Sounds like what the parent was saying, so not flatly incorrect.
  - twoodfin 2y ago
    What the parent said: “If the law says the President cannot fire someone, or interfere in an agency’s work, then the President cannot.” This is, indeed, flatly incorrect. Congress cannot pass a law requiring that the Secretary of State or Defense or Treasury be fired only for cause. The SCOTUS case knocking it down would likely be 9-0. “Congress writes the laws and can make them say whatever they want” totally ignores separation-of-powers concerns that the Constitution and its guardians in Article III courts take very seriously.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - ModernMech 2y ago
      > Congress cannot pass a law requiring that the Secretary of State or Defense or Treasury be fired only for cause. The SCOTUS case knocking it down would likely be 9-0. No one is saying Congress can restrict the President from firing political appointees or his Cabinet. We're talking about the quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial agencies here. In the case you cite, Humphrey was on the FTC, and Roosevelt tried to fire him. The Court said the President couldn't him because Congress wrote it in the law. That's exactly what the other poster was saying, so how are they flatly incorrect?

grandempire 2y ago

So your understanding is that these agencies are part of the legislative branch and the senate/house would have the power to do this? If it’s that clear will it be easy to take this to the Supreme Court?

pas 2y ago
They don't have to be part of any branch. The usual branches are descriptive concepts. (Or they can be part of the executive branch yet still not be part of the "unitary executive" part. The law allows for any kind of exemptions and special-casing.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory
- grandempire 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - cowfriend 2y ago
    Friend, I think I see your concern, and I may have an answer. Most of the bureaucracy is apolitical. However, the heads and higher-ups of each agency are appointed by the currently in-office politicians. So the upper management is composed of political appointments. And like any other organization, the upper management has considerable discretion in setting priorities. re: "politically selective law enforcement" is not a good thing, because laws are one of the things that are supposed to constrain politicians.
  - ARandumGuy 2y ago
    They're not "accountable to nobody". Assuming they have the votes, congress can revoke any law, at any time, for any reason. And typically laws specifying the appointment of specific people also have provisions for removing that person. The reason for this is stability. Congress, businesses, international allies, and most US citizens typically don't want things to dramatically change every new presidential administration. And the primary way to ensure that stability is to make it so the same people are working in various government offices from administration to administration. And I think people are quickly learning why that stability is desirable, as the current administration attempts to dismantle it with no consideration for the consequences.
    - kelipso 2y ago
      I guess we are at the "deep state is good actually" stage of the process now.
      - pyronik19 2y ago
        [dead]
      - DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
        The deep state is why Rome survived so many crazy emperors.
      - pas 2y ago
        what do you think the constitution is?
snowwrestler 2y ago
They are part of the executive branch, but the law governs and constrains the behavior of the executive in managing them. You can’t even say that Congress is solely the source of those constraints since the laws creating and governing these agencies were signed by… the president! Most of these agencies have already been challenged in court and the Constitutionality of their structure and governance affirmed.
- grandempire 2y ago
  I agree. Taking trump to court for not carrying out existing law is a winning case. Saying he can’t replace X person because they are in an independent branch is not going to hold up. And I suspect they know that and want the court to rule on it. Unless someone can make an argument that they actually report to congress.
  - whamlastxmas 2y ago
    Part of the executive power in the US is that the president influences the judicial branch, and ultimately the judicial branch is going to determine who gets to do what. They do this in many ways, a big one being they can prioritize any case they want, and simply decline to even hear certain ones. So if the president wants to do something, congress pushes back and challenges it and it goes to court, the president can effectively “get away with it” as long as the judiciary is fine with it
    - kelipso 2y ago
      > Part of the executive power in the US is that the president influences the judicial branch How? Judicial branch is independent.
      - Henchman21 2y ago
        Influence is not control?
        2y ago

whamlastxmas 2y ago

Congress can only make laws if they don’t infringe on the constitution. If they want laws that aren’t constitutional, they have to make constitutional amendments, which is probably never going to happen ever again because of how dysfunctional they are and have been for decades. The president has a lot of constitutional protection to run the executive branch, though obviously congress has ways to pass laws and influence that, too. The president isn’t accountable to congress but there are checks and balances both ways

twoodfin 2y ago

This is just flatly incorrect. Humphrey's Executor (which may not be long for this world as precedent, anyway) lays out specific cases where "for cause" requirements on termination are Constitutional, but otherwise the President's power to dismiss subordinate officers of the executive branch is absolute.

ModernMech 2y ago
The Court distinguished between executive officers and quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial officers. The Court held that the latter may be removed only with procedures consistent with statutory conditions enacted by Congress, but the former serve at the pleasure of the President and may be removed at his discretion. The Court ruled that the Federal Trade Commission was a quasi-legislative body because it adjudicated cases and promulgated rules. Thus, the President could not fire a member solely for political reasons. Therefore, Humphrey's firing was improper. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humphrey%27s_Executor_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humphrey%27s_Executor_v._Unite... Sounds like what the parent was saying, so not flatly incorrect.
- twoodfin 2y ago
  What the parent said: “If the law says the President cannot fire someone, or interfere in an agency’s work, then the President cannot.” This is, indeed, flatly incorrect. Congress cannot pass a law requiring that the Secretary of State or Defense or Treasury be fired only for cause. The SCOTUS case knocking it down would likely be 9-0. “Congress writes the laws and can make them say whatever they want” totally ignores separation-of-powers concerns that the Constitution and its guardians in Article III courts take very seriously.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - ModernMech 2y ago
    > Congress cannot pass a law requiring that the Secretary of State or Defense or Treasury be fired only for cause. The SCOTUS case knocking it down would likely be 9-0. No one is saying Congress can restrict the President from firing political appointees or his Cabinet. We're talking about the quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial agencies here. In the case you cite, Humphrey was on the FTC, and Roosevelt tried to fire him. The Court said the President couldn't him because Congress wrote it in the law. That's exactly what the other poster was saying, so how are they flatly incorrect?