3 ms·

All three branches of the government are beholden to the Constitution as a whole, and to each other based on the Constitutional roles and their expressions of t

All three branches of the government are beholden to the Constitution as a whole, and to each other based on the Constitutional roles and their expressions of their roles. All government actors individually are also responsible to the Constitution and its expression by all three branches first, before any loyalty to anyone else. In the same branch or not. Even before the current top office holders of the executive branch, congressional majorities, or Supreme Court justices. Saying that a President’s personal interpretation of Congress’ laws or the courts precedence, completely overrides any individual executive employees good faith understanding and responsibility to the Constitution, laws, and judicial rulings is madness. There will be disagreements within a branch that will need to be worked out. The president certainly has more power and deserves special respect. But his helpers must stand firm with the constitution first. Settling Constitutional level disagreements within a branch is a desirable process. The president, and all government actors, need pushback when they start running into the weeds, and vetting when their take seems Constitutionally risky or outright invalid. Taking into full account all valid standing orders, laws and rulings. The Presidents most important advisors are subject to Senate approval precisely because they are supposed to be loyal to the Constitution and laws first. If the president says he believes arresting disagreeable members of the Supreme Court is Constitutionally supported because yadda, yadda, yadda, you don’t do it. If the President directs the Vice President not to certify an election, because he interprets that role as active and worthy of pauses and delays to settle issues the President deems Constitutionslly important during an election… But you the Vice President, after careful thought and consultation believe your role is ceremonial, you fulfill the ceremony.

refurb 2y ago
> Saying that a President’s personal interpretation of Congress’ laws or the courts precedence, completely overrides any individual executive employees good faith understanding and responsibility to the Constitution, laws, and judicial rulings is madness. But it's not madness based on the intended structure of government? The EO isn't saying "ignore Constitutional violations". It wouldn't be valid if it did. If Congress passes a law that say "tobacco is banned", and the US President says "I will direct my agencies to follow this new law" and you have agencies saying "I'm not a lawyer, but I feel like this law is unconstitutional so my agency is not going to follow it!"? How would the government even function if you have 100 agencies with 50 of them having the power to come up with their own interpretation of the law? How is that even workable as a branch of government? The executive branch of government is more accurately viewed as a monolithic organization which derives 100% of it's authority by delegation from the US President. This is why the president personally selects the heads of each agency (with the Senate approving). Authority moves down from the president all the way to the most junior government employee - they are acting on behalf of the president. > There will be disagreements within a branch that will need to be worked out. What does "worked out" mean? For legal issues the President will consult the US attorney general. If it's complex, the DOJ might create a white paper determining the constitutionality of a law or not. To have an agency head disagree with that determination seems like a rogue agency. Why would that agency head know better than the attorney general?
- timoth3y 2y ago
  > The executive branch of government is more accurately viewed as a monolithic organization which derives 100% of it's authority by delegation from the US President That is inaccurate. Almost all federal departments and agencies derive their authority from acts of Congress. The President has very limited authority to create and empower agencies. The strongest argument against the CFPB is that is was not created by an act of Congress. Trump could not create a DOGE so he renamed the USDS. He cannot shut down USAID, but he can mismanage it. The president is required by law to execute the laws passed by Congress even if he strongly disagrees. The mass firings and funding holds have the legal fig leaf that he is managing them to the best of his ability.
  - refurb 2y ago
    > Almost all federal departments and agencies derive their authority from acts of Congress. Partially, as we need to be precise in our language. Congress can design an agency, determine what powers it has, determine agency procedures and fund agencies. It's up to the President to execute the law within those boundaries, including selecting the head of that agency (with Senate approval), and determining how the agency executes the law which can be incredibly broad if Congress wasn't proscriptive. Thus the authority to execute the laws is delegated to the President by the Constitution who then delegates that power to the head of the agency which acts on the Presidents behalf. More broadly, the Supreme Court has made clear that the Constitution imposes important limits on Congress’s ability to influence or control the actions of officers once they are appointed. Likewise, it is widely believed that the President must retain a certain amount of independent discretion in selecting officers that Congress may not impede. These principles ensure that the President may fulfill his constitutional duty under Article II to take [c]are that the laws are faithfully executed.9 https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3-6/ALDE_00000012/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3...
    - Nevermark 2y ago
      > More broadly, the Supreme Court has made clear that the Constitution imposes important limits on Congress’s [and the President’s] ability to influence or control the actions of officers once they are appointed. Improved on that, just a tad, for this discussions context. Not disagreeing. Without that balance Congress couldn’t delegate anything with any expectation of its will being carried out. And the President couldn’t ensure the agency acted competently and with respect to the President’s good faith understanding of the agency’s guiding laws. With the courts ready to step in to settle any differences. Agencies can only work reliably with the differing participations and limitations of all three roles. As with all expressions of law.

refurb 2y ago

> Saying that a President’s personal interpretation of Congress’ laws or the courts precedence, completely overrides any individual executive employees good faith understanding and responsibility to the Constitution, laws, and judicial rulings is madness. But it's not madness based on the intended structure of government? The EO isn't saying "ignore Constitutional violations". It wouldn't be valid if it did. If Congress passes a law that say "tobacco is banned", and the US President says "I will direct my agencies to follow this new law" and you have agencies saying "I'm not a lawyer, but I feel like this law is unconstitutional so my agency is not going to follow it!"? How would the government even function if you have 100 agencies with 50 of them having the power to come up with their own interpretation of the law? How is that even workable as a branch of government? The executive branch of government is more accurately viewed as a monolithic organization which derives 100% of it's authority by delegation from the US President. This is why the president personally selects the heads of each agency (with the Senate approving). Authority moves down from the president all the way to the most junior government employee - they are acting on behalf of the president. > There will be disagreements within a branch that will need to be worked out. What does "worked out" mean? For legal issues the President will consult the US attorney general. If it's complex, the DOJ might create a white paper determining the constitutionality of a law or not. To have an agency head disagree with that determination seems like a rogue agency. Why would that agency head know better than the attorney general?

timoth3y 2y ago
> The executive branch of government is more accurately viewed as a monolithic organization which derives 100% of it's authority by delegation from the US President That is inaccurate. Almost all federal departments and agencies derive their authority from acts of Congress. The President has very limited authority to create and empower agencies. The strongest argument against the CFPB is that is was not created by an act of Congress. Trump could not create a DOGE so he renamed the USDS. He cannot shut down USAID, but he can mismanage it. The president is required by law to execute the laws passed by Congress even if he strongly disagrees. The mass firings and funding holds have the legal fig leaf that he is managing them to the best of his ability.
- refurb 2y ago
  > Almost all federal departments and agencies derive their authority from acts of Congress. Partially, as we need to be precise in our language. Congress can design an agency, determine what powers it has, determine agency procedures and fund agencies. It's up to the President to execute the law within those boundaries, including selecting the head of that agency (with Senate approval), and determining how the agency executes the law which can be incredibly broad if Congress wasn't proscriptive. Thus the authority to execute the laws is delegated to the President by the Constitution who then delegates that power to the head of the agency which acts on the Presidents behalf. More broadly, the Supreme Court has made clear that the Constitution imposes important limits on Congress’s ability to influence or control the actions of officers once they are appointed. Likewise, it is widely believed that the President must retain a certain amount of independent discretion in selecting officers that Congress may not impede. These principles ensure that the President may fulfill his constitutional duty under Article II to take [c]are that the laws are faithfully executed.9 https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3-6/ALDE_00000012/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3...
  - Nevermark 2y ago
    > More broadly, the Supreme Court has made clear that the Constitution imposes important limits on Congress’s [and the President’s] ability to influence or control the actions of officers once they are appointed. Improved on that, just a tad, for this discussions context. Not disagreeing. Without that balance Congress couldn’t delegate anything with any expectation of its will being carried out. And the President couldn’t ensure the agency acted competently and with respect to the President’s good faith understanding of the agency’s guiding laws. With the courts ready to step in to settle any differences. Agencies can only work reliably with the differing participations and limitations of all three roles. As with all expressions of law.