5 ms·

who, exactly, is in control of independent agencies if Congress never corrects their power and the Executive isn't in charge? For example: the perennial fight

who, exactly, is in control of independent agencies if Congress never corrects their power and the Executive isn't in charge? For example: the perennial fight over "net neutrality" was because Congress absconded their duty to write regulation and handed it off to the Executive to figure out in a vague way that allowed for flip flopping policies with the force of law every time the administration changed. You know what would stop the Executive power grab currently happening? If Congress would do their damn jobs. The Republicans in Congress are more to blame for this mess than the White House. This is supposed to be their power that they are just sitting and watching get taken away. But the Democrats aren't guiltless either. People who care about this sort of thing have been complaining for decades, right through Democrat majorities and administrations. They had plenty of chances. The whole beltway fucking sucks and we are so cooked.

hackyhacky 2y ago
> The Republicans in Congress are more to blame for this mess than the White House. The fact that Congress is ineffective in no way absolves the executive branch of irresponsible or illegal behavior. The president took an oath.
- Sabinus 2y ago
  Everyone is responsible for their own behaviour but if the legislature doesn't function nothing else will either. And we know the legislature has progressively become less functional, less bipartisan, less legislation passed every decade.
- khazhoux 2y ago
  Genuine question: what here is illegal?
  - vkou 2y ago
    The executive cannot just unilaterally shut down departments created by acts of congress. That's what makes it illegal.
    - khazhoux 2y ago
      18F was not created via act of Congress, as far as I have been able to tell. Do you see a source that shows otherwise?
      - beej71 2y ago
        I don't know about 18F, but the shutdowns are far more widespread than that.
      - Spooky23 2y ago
        18F was a business unit of the General Services Administration, which was created via 41 U.S.C. 251, the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949. The act transferred the function of the Federal Works Agency and the Treasury Bureau of Federal Supply to the GSA. The agency is directed and authorized to perform a variety of tasks, from real estate, to acquisition, to information technology and telecommunications. 31 USC 1535, The Economy Act, authorizes Federal agencies to purchase from each other in the interests of economy. Obvious application is that rather than have the Social Security Administration lease an office or build a building, they sublease or lease a facility owned by the GSA so Federal demand can be aggregated. 1 big lease is cheaper than 12 little ones. In the case of 18F, having a consultive entity within the GSA maximizes the value of procurements made by GSA and other agencies. When congress appropriates money to say, the Department of Labor to perform a function, DOL may choose to engage 18F to deliver or assist, avoiding additional procurement and taking advantage of investments and capability already built. Congress in 1949 recognized that basic concepts like shared services, aggregation and mission focus deliver value and promote efficient operations. The current regime's corrupt interest is obvious to anyone with a brain.
      - vkou 2y ago
        18F is not the only department that is being shut down. The current iteration of USAID was created by an act of Congress. Unless the President's office has been given the power to create and pass legislature at some point in the past five weeks, only Congress can unmake it. So was the CFPB, which is also being shut down. So was the Department of Education.
vkou 2y ago
The purple fringes of the congressional GOP would be crucified by their constituents if they were doing this shit, which is why it is sitting back and letting the executive do everything that the party always wanted, but couldn't, while they keep their hands free. The legislature could stop this, yes. But it won't, because he is carrying out the program the GOP always wished it could have done, but couldn't. Once this all goes to shit, they will of course, blame him, while keeping their own hands clean. And given just how fucking fast a dedicated executive can destroy anything it doesn't like, there's literally nothing the Dems could have done to prevent this. It doesn't matter what laws they passed when they had control of government, when the current executive simply doesn't follow the law. And the only people who could compel it to follow the law don't want it to. The only cure to this is never voting red, under any circumstances, for any position, in any race. It's been fully compromised, and is unsalvageable.
- BrenBarn 2y ago
  > And given just how fucking fast a dedicated executive can destroy anything it doesn't like, there's literally nothing the Dems could have done to prevent this. It doesn't matter what laws they passed when they had control of government, when the current executive simply doesn't follow the law. Oh yes there is. It's just more radical than they were prepared to admit was necessary. It's things like ramming through thousands of new federal judgeships, packing the Supreme Court, passing anti-gerrymandering laws with jail-time penalities for state officials that violate them, and ultimately packing the union (https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-133/pack-the-union-a-proposal-to-admit-new-states-for-the-purpose-of-amending-the-constitution-to-ensure-equal-representation/ https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-133/pack-the-union-a-...). The things that needed to be done were not "make things so no president can do this when he gets elected", it's "fix the system so these kinds of people cannot ever be elected".
  - vkou 2y ago
    Yes, I suppose they can be blamed for not doing something like that when they get a 49.8% mandate. It would also alienate half their voter base, because it actually believes in the systems and due process. (We can also blame them for not imprisoning, quicky and fairly trying, and executing Trump for sedition and treason when they could.)
Arainach 2y ago
With the exception of a few days (which don't really count because of a sick Senator Kennedy and spineless moderate conservativeJoe Lieberman), the Democrats haven't had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate in many, many decades.
wat10000 2y ago
Both major parties have been giving up the power of Congress for decades. They’re constantly handing more power to the executive, seemingly because it lets them dodge responsibility. People get mad at you when you do stuff, but if you just vest some power in an executive agency then people get mad at the President instead when that agency does the stuff. People have been warning for a long time that this concentration of power in the executive is ripe for abuse. And here we are.

hackyhacky 2y ago

> The Republicans in Congress are more to blame for this mess than the White House. The fact that Congress is ineffective in no way absolves the executive branch of irresponsible or illegal behavior. The president took an oath.

Sabinus 2y ago
Everyone is responsible for their own behaviour but if the legislature doesn't function nothing else will either. And we know the legislature has progressively become less functional, less bipartisan, less legislation passed every decade.
khazhoux 2y ago
Genuine question: what here is illegal?
- vkou 2y ago
  The executive cannot just unilaterally shut down departments created by acts of congress. That's what makes it illegal.
  - khazhoux 2y ago
    18F was not created via act of Congress, as far as I have been able to tell. Do you see a source that shows otherwise?
    - beej71 2y ago
      I don't know about 18F, but the shutdowns are far more widespread than that.
    - Spooky23 2y ago
      18F was a business unit of the General Services Administration, which was created via 41 U.S.C. 251, the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949. The act transferred the function of the Federal Works Agency and the Treasury Bureau of Federal Supply to the GSA. The agency is directed and authorized to perform a variety of tasks, from real estate, to acquisition, to information technology and telecommunications. 31 USC 1535, The Economy Act, authorizes Federal agencies to purchase from each other in the interests of economy. Obvious application is that rather than have the Social Security Administration lease an office or build a building, they sublease or lease a facility owned by the GSA so Federal demand can be aggregated. 1 big lease is cheaper than 12 little ones. In the case of 18F, having a consultive entity within the GSA maximizes the value of procurements made by GSA and other agencies. When congress appropriates money to say, the Department of Labor to perform a function, DOL may choose to engage 18F to deliver or assist, avoiding additional procurement and taking advantage of investments and capability already built. Congress in 1949 recognized that basic concepts like shared services, aggregation and mission focus deliver value and promote efficient operations. The current regime's corrupt interest is obvious to anyone with a brain.
    - vkou 2y ago
      18F is not the only department that is being shut down. The current iteration of USAID was created by an act of Congress. Unless the President's office has been given the power to create and pass legislature at some point in the past five weeks, only Congress can unmake it. So was the CFPB, which is also being shut down. So was the Department of Education.

vkou 2y ago

The purple fringes of the congressional GOP would be crucified by their constituents if they were doing this shit, which is why it is sitting back and letting the executive do everything that the party always wanted, but couldn't, while they keep their hands free. The legislature could stop this, yes. But it won't, because he is carrying out the program the GOP always wished it could have done, but couldn't. Once this all goes to shit, they will of course, blame him, while keeping their own hands clean. And given just how fucking fast a dedicated executive can destroy anything it doesn't like, there's literally nothing the Dems could have done to prevent this. It doesn't matter what laws they passed when they had control of government, when the current executive simply doesn't follow the law. And the only people who could compel it to follow the law don't want it to. The only cure to this is never voting red, under any circumstances, for any position, in any race. It's been fully compromised, and is unsalvageable.

BrenBarn 2y ago
> And given just how fucking fast a dedicated executive can destroy anything it doesn't like, there's literally nothing the Dems could have done to prevent this. It doesn't matter what laws they passed when they had control of government, when the current executive simply doesn't follow the law. Oh yes there is. It's just more radical than they were prepared to admit was necessary. It's things like ramming through thousands of new federal judgeships, packing the Supreme Court, passing anti-gerrymandering laws with jail-time penalities for state officials that violate them, and ultimately packing the union (https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-133/pack-the-union-a-proposal-to-admit-new-states-for-the-purpose-of-amending-the-constitution-to-ensure-equal-representation/ https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-133/pack-the-union-a-...). The things that needed to be done were not "make things so no president can do this when he gets elected", it's "fix the system so these kinds of people cannot ever be elected".
- vkou 2y ago
  Yes, I suppose they can be blamed for not doing something like that when they get a 49.8% mandate. It would also alienate half their voter base, because it actually believes in the systems and due process. (We can also blame them for not imprisoning, quicky and fairly trying, and executing Trump for sedition and treason when they could.)

Arainach 2y ago

With the exception of a few days (which don't really count because of a sick Senator Kennedy and spineless moderate conservativeJoe Lieberman), the Democrats haven't had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate in many, many decades.

wat10000 2y ago

Both major parties have been giving up the power of Congress for decades. They’re constantly handing more power to the executive, seemingly because it lets them dodge responsibility. People get mad at you when you do stuff, but if you just vest some power in an executive agency then people get mad at the President instead when that agency does the stuff. People have been warning for a long time that this concentration of power in the executive is ripe for abuse. And here we are.