4 ms·

Naive interpretations like this one, of bad faith actions is how we get there. This same assumption of good faith was wholly present in peoples' responses to p

by svnt 2y ago

Naive interpretations like this one, of bad faith actions is how we get there. This same assumption of good faith was wholly present in peoples' responses to project 2025 prior to the election. They are not acting in good faith. Try restating the problem: Why is this EO being issued? What problem, other than judicial review, does it solve for the executive branch? EDIT: For those who do not think this contributes anything: can you answer the question?

galleywest200 2y ago
>Naive interpretations like this one, of bad faith actions is how we get there. Instead of just dismissing things out of hand like this, maybe you could provide a "less naive" interpretation? Your statement is not helpful either.
- lobf 2y ago
  That answer can be found in the question they asked. Care to take a crack at it?
- handoflixue 2y ago
  Fundamentally, an EO says "we urgently need to course correct and do X", which only makes sense if you agree that X is not already being done. So this EO is not just declaring "the Executive Branch will obey me", but also saying "the Executive Branch has been so disobedient that I need to take immediate action to quash that" If you are saying that latter sentence, you should be able to justify it by pointing at the disobedience that caused this issue AND explain why the usual mechanism of "Congress passes a law to address the problem" is insufficient (AND congress is currently aligned with the President politically, so that's a fairly uphill battle to argue) --- As an example, no one should ever need to write an EO declaring "the sky is blue." If you're familiar with history, you might remember that smog used to turn the sky yellow. If someone wrote such an EO back then, you could reasonably conclude the actual purpose of the EO is to declare "it is now illegal to notice that the smog is so bad that it's changing the color of the sky."
  - HideousKojima 2y ago
    >So this EO is not just declaring "the Executive Branch will obey me", but also saying "the Executive Branch has been so disobedient that I need to take immediate action to quash that" I mean, bureaucrats literally lied to Trump in his first term about troop numbers in Syria so that he wouldn't take action to pull them out (and then bragged about it after Biden got in): https://taskandpurpose.com/news/us-troop-levels-syria-jeffrey-interview/ https://taskandpurpose.com/news/us-troop-levels-syria-jeffre...
    - handoflixue 2y ago
      I'm not really clear what that has to do with the IRS, FDA, FAA, etc.? You don't burn down the whole orchard just because there's one bad apple. You certainly don't burn down the neighboring citrus farm. I'm also not sure why something from 5 years ago is in any way urgent, much less so urgent that he needs to bypass a favorable Congress.
khazhoux 2y ago
> Why is this EO being issued? What problem, other than judicial review, does it solve for the executive branch? It is saying that for all matters where a law is not explicit and prescriptive, the WH shall provide the interpretation for the agency to follow. The WH is correct that (aside from judicial review, which is not at issue here) they have final authority over how to implement open-ended laws, and not the agencies that function under the WH.
- matthewmcg 2y ago
  What about the constitutional directive that the President shall ensure that the laws are faithfully executed? Congress has prescribed how agencies may issue regulations and interpretations through statutes shouldn’t these statutes control?
  - jack_h 2y ago
    Article II Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America It doesn't say "some of the executive power", nor does Article I mention anything about being able to create new executive powers vested in other entities. So if the president is the only one who has been vested with the executive power, how can a functionary of the executive promulgate a regulation that disagrees with the president? Ultimately the House can impeach and the Senate convict, possibly disqualifying them from federal office.
    - matthewmcg 2y ago
      Right, but what is “executive power”? It is the power to put laws into effect—to execute them. And Congress writes those laws. Article 2 Section 1 does not confer power beyond what the laws provide. And “vested” does not mean exclusive. Many U.S. laws grant executive power, including the power to promulgate regulations, to persons in the executive branch other than the president. For example, the Communications Act of 1934 creates the FCC and gives the commission the power to “perform any and all acts, make such rules and regulations, and issue such orders, not inconsistent with this chapter, as may be necessary in the execution of its functions.”[1] There is no authority in the statute for the President to override these determinations made by the Commission. [1] 47 U.S.C. 154(i) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/154 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/154
roenxi 2y ago
> Why is this EO being issued? It explains itself in Section 1; pretty much all the above the fold material is on exactly that topic. Trump & friends are taking the interpretation that the US presidential election is a vote on how the executive government is to be run. As an extension of that, they're pulling power away from the unelected bureaucracy back towards the office of president - because a vote can't change the direction of the executive if parts of it are on autopilot independently of the president. > What problem, other than judicial review, does it solve for the executive branch? It doesn't change anything about judicial review. The thing they're targeting is parts of the executive acting independently of the president; which given the behaviour of the intelligence services is probably targeted at them but might be aimed at any of the bureaucrats. Whether it is a good idea long term is a complex question though. This looks like an area where the separation of powers gets to murky territory. It is hard to have separation of powers given how much of it has been given to the president over the last century - the small-government strategy was a better approach than what the US has set up here.
- groby_b 2y ago
  > because a vote can't change the direction of the executive if parts of it are on autopilot independently of the president. That's only mildly true, and the belief of micromanagers everywhere. Ultimately, you need to set an overall direction and then let people execute within that framework, or you're going to get something that's badly run and slow as molasses. With a nuanced interpretation, this EO even might make some amount of sense (a bit more overview/stricter guidelines). But wherever you stand politically, you can't accuse the current administration to have a sense of nuance. And, of course, if you want to assume the worst, it's fair to point out that the EO removes all independence without having to spell out any guidelines, which means a world without guidelines and on-a-whim decisions is well possible. That's not a good thing for a regulatory environment. Or a democracy. And that's the biggest problem - because even if the current administration has only noble goals (and I really don't want to debate this either way, let's skip that comment stream), this XO is massively ripe for abuse for people with non-noble intentions.
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
jtc331 2y ago
> What problem, other than judicial review, does it solve for the executive branch? It’s fairly obvious on its face the concern of the EO is not judicial review but about agencies that nominally are past of the branch the President heads determining interpretations of law contrary to what the head of the executive desires. And, it does genuinely seem weird to have an executive branch where the head of that branch doesn’t actually control things. The negative reaction is entirely because of the current executive head, but no one would bat an eye if this were Barack Obama reigning in some executive agency interpreting, say, immigration law in opposition to DACA.
- paulryanrogers 2y ago
  > ...heads determining interpretations of law contrary to what the head of the executive desires. Is the head of the executive an expert in all things? And capable of communicating those expert desires with perfect clarity? Why have courts if the executive head can sort out all legal nuance themselves?
  - twoodfin 2y ago
    The Constitution is explicit that all executive power is vested in the president. Article III courts can “sort out all legal nuance”, but the power remains with the president.
    - disgruntledphd2 2y ago
      Sure, but an executive basically just implements the laws, not decide what they are. Given the US system this is important, as it's quite possible for the President not to have a majority in the legislature.
  - lmm 2y ago
    > Is the head of the executive an expert in all things? And capable of communicating those expert desires with perfect clarity? It's not their job to be the expert, it's their job to be the decisionmaker. That's why you have a head. If two federal agencies want to interpret the law differently, it's more important to pick one interpretation and apply it consistently than to get it perfectly right. > Why have courts if the executive head can sort out all legal nuance themselves? Checks and balances are important but so is the ability to actually do things occasionally. Independence for the court system is good. Independence for every individual federal agency isn't.

by svnt 2y ago

galleywest200 2y ago

>Naive interpretations like this one, of bad faith actions is how we get there. Instead of just dismissing things out of hand like this, maybe you could provide a "less naive" interpretation? Your statement is not helpful either.

lobf 2y ago
That answer can be found in the question they asked. Care to take a crack at it?
handoflixue 2y ago
Fundamentally, an EO says "we urgently need to course correct and do X", which only makes sense if you agree that X is not already being done. So this EO is not just declaring "the Executive Branch will obey me", but also saying "the Executive Branch has been so disobedient that I need to take immediate action to quash that" If you are saying that latter sentence, you should be able to justify it by pointing at the disobedience that caused this issue AND explain why the usual mechanism of "Congress passes a law to address the problem" is insufficient (AND congress is currently aligned with the President politically, so that's a fairly uphill battle to argue) --- As an example, no one should ever need to write an EO declaring "the sky is blue." If you're familiar with history, you might remember that smog used to turn the sky yellow. If someone wrote such an EO back then, you could reasonably conclude the actual purpose of the EO is to declare "it is now illegal to notice that the smog is so bad that it's changing the color of the sky."
- HideousKojima 2y ago
  >So this EO is not just declaring "the Executive Branch will obey me", but also saying "the Executive Branch has been so disobedient that I need to take immediate action to quash that" I mean, bureaucrats literally lied to Trump in his first term about troop numbers in Syria so that he wouldn't take action to pull them out (and then bragged about it after Biden got in): https://taskandpurpose.com/news/us-troop-levels-syria-jeffrey-interview/ https://taskandpurpose.com/news/us-troop-levels-syria-jeffre...
  - handoflixue 2y ago
    I'm not really clear what that has to do with the IRS, FDA, FAA, etc.? You don't burn down the whole orchard just because there's one bad apple. You certainly don't burn down the neighboring citrus farm. I'm also not sure why something from 5 years ago is in any way urgent, much less so urgent that he needs to bypass a favorable Congress.

khazhoux 2y ago

> Why is this EO being issued? What problem, other than judicial review, does it solve for the executive branch? It is saying that for all matters where a law is not explicit and prescriptive, the WH shall provide the interpretation for the agency to follow. The WH is correct that (aside from judicial review, which is not at issue here) they have final authority over how to implement open-ended laws, and not the agencies that function under the WH.

matthewmcg 2y ago
What about the constitutional directive that the President shall ensure that the laws are faithfully executed? Congress has prescribed how agencies may issue regulations and interpretations through statutes shouldn’t these statutes control?
- jack_h 2y ago
  Article II Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America It doesn't say "some of the executive power", nor does Article I mention anything about being able to create new executive powers vested in other entities. So if the president is the only one who has been vested with the executive power, how can a functionary of the executive promulgate a regulation that disagrees with the president? Ultimately the House can impeach and the Senate convict, possibly disqualifying them from federal office.
  - matthewmcg 2y ago
    Right, but what is “executive power”? It is the power to put laws into effect—to execute them. And Congress writes those laws. Article 2 Section 1 does not confer power beyond what the laws provide. And “vested” does not mean exclusive. Many U.S. laws grant executive power, including the power to promulgate regulations, to persons in the executive branch other than the president. For example, the Communications Act of 1934 creates the FCC and gives the commission the power to “perform any and all acts, make such rules and regulations, and issue such orders, not inconsistent with this chapter, as may be necessary in the execution of its functions.”[1] There is no authority in the statute for the President to override these determinations made by the Commission. [1] 47 U.S.C. 154(i) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/154 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/154

roenxi 2y ago

> Why is this EO being issued? It explains itself in Section 1; pretty much all the above the fold material is on exactly that topic. Trump & friends are taking the interpretation that the US presidential election is a vote on how the executive government is to be run. As an extension of that, they're pulling power away from the unelected bureaucracy back towards the office of president - because a vote can't change the direction of the executive if parts of it are on autopilot independently of the president. > What problem, other than judicial review, does it solve for the executive branch? It doesn't change anything about judicial review. The thing they're targeting is parts of the executive acting independently of the president; which given the behaviour of the intelligence services is probably targeted at them but might be aimed at any of the bureaucrats. Whether it is a good idea long term is a complex question though. This looks like an area where the separation of powers gets to murky territory. It is hard to have separation of powers given how much of it has been given to the president over the last century - the small-government strategy was a better approach than what the US has set up here.

groby_b 2y ago
> because a vote can't change the direction of the executive if parts of it are on autopilot independently of the president. That's only mildly true, and the belief of micromanagers everywhere. Ultimately, you need to set an overall direction and then let people execute within that framework, or you're going to get something that's badly run and slow as molasses. With a nuanced interpretation, this EO even might make some amount of sense (a bit more overview/stricter guidelines). But wherever you stand politically, you can't accuse the current administration to have a sense of nuance. And, of course, if you want to assume the worst, it's fair to point out that the EO removes all independence without having to spell out any guidelines, which means a world without guidelines and on-a-whim decisions is well possible. That's not a good thing for a regulatory environment. Or a democracy. And that's the biggest problem - because even if the current administration has only noble goals (and I really don't want to debate this either way, let's skip that comment stream), this XO is massively ripe for abuse for people with non-noble intentions.
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago

jtc331 2y ago

> What problem, other than judicial review, does it solve for the executive branch? It’s fairly obvious on its face the concern of the EO is not judicial review but about agencies that nominally are past of the branch the President heads determining interpretations of law contrary to what the head of the executive desires. And, it does genuinely seem weird to have an executive branch where the head of that branch doesn’t actually control things. The negative reaction is entirely because of the current executive head, but no one would bat an eye if this were Barack Obama reigning in some executive agency interpreting, say, immigration law in opposition to DACA.

paulryanrogers 2y ago
> ...heads determining interpretations of law contrary to what the head of the executive desires. Is the head of the executive an expert in all things? And capable of communicating those expert desires with perfect clarity? Why have courts if the executive head can sort out all legal nuance themselves?
- twoodfin 2y ago
  The Constitution is explicit that all executive power is vested in the president. Article III courts can “sort out all legal nuance”, but the power remains with the president.
  - disgruntledphd2 2y ago
    Sure, but an executive basically just implements the laws, not decide what they are. Given the US system this is important, as it's quite possible for the President not to have a majority in the legislature.
- lmm 2y ago
  > Is the head of the executive an expert in all things? And capable of communicating those expert desires with perfect clarity? It's not their job to be the expert, it's their job to be the decisionmaker. That's why you have a head. If two federal agencies want to interpret the law differently, it's more important to pick one interpretation and apply it consistently than to get it perfectly right. > Why have courts if the executive head can sort out all legal nuance themselves? Checks and balances are important but so is the ability to actually do things occasionally. Independence for the court system is good. Independence for every individual federal agency isn't.