6 ms·

Many actions the administration has taken are illegal. Not sure if those related to NIH are, but if they’ve been firing people, odds are good, since they’ve bee

Many actions the administration has taken are illegal. Not sure if those related to NIH are, but if they’ve been firing people, odds are good, since they’ve been doing that wrong most of the time it seems like. Congress could change the laws, but they haven’t. Lots of this junk is simply against the law. The courts are moving relatively fast, as such things go, but it takes time. Congress is supposed to control spending and taxation. The administration is claiming a ton of powers related, especially, to spending. Various actions they’ve taken certainly violate the constitution and laws that exist to ensure Congress’ budget isn’t simply ignored by a president. This is another matter for the courts… unless the Supreme Court decides to rule that the radical and unprecedented far-right “unitary executive” interpretation is correct, in which case we’ve just entered a new and far worse era of American government, and it’s all “legal”. I give it 50/50 they do that.

ivraatiems 2y ago
We're well past the point where something being illegal or not matters whatsoever. I'm surprised federal court rulings are being listened to at all, really. I'm not sure why they are.
- selectodude 2y ago
  They really aren’t. Lots of contempt of court happening by the executive branch.
closewith 2y ago
Are you sure that the rule of law in the US is strong enough to avert a dictatorship?
- jachee 2y ago
  If the military upholds their oath to the Constitution, we should never have a dictatorship.
  - btilly 2y ago
    That's why Trump just did a purge of top generals and lawyers in the military.
  - tastyfreeze 2y ago
    And that military action would be called a coup despite being the expected outcome of an attempted dictator.
  - arp242 2y ago
    The military getting involved is an absolute last resort type thing. And comes with risks of its own: military coups/juntas that started out as a legitimate dethroning of a dictator are not unheard of.
D13Fd 2y ago
> I give it 50/50 they do that. Do they even need to, though? If the president cannot be prosecuted for any official acts, and has the power to pardon any subordinate for ignoring the law, and to fire (and then prosecute) anyone who insists on following the law, what does the law matter?
- modzu 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - daveguy 2y ago
    Nah.
  - noduerme 2y ago
    That's a demented way of looking at the world, and it's disproven by the historical success of America as a republic, compared with countries in which "survival of the fittest" is the only rule, like Russia, or pick any dictatorship. Survival of the fittest leads to dictatorship; dictatorships stagnate, because they spend all their energy only on maintaining power. They are efficient in one sense, at maintaining order. But they are centralized and limited in throughput and therefore are never dynamic systems capable of growth and innovation.
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  The path we went down starting with Lincoln and the imperial presidency has finally fully manifested.
- roenxi 2y ago
  The mechanism seems to rest on the principle of separation of powers - Congress is empowered both to write the laws, and to remove presidents. That means that there can't be a major misalignment between Congress and the executive, because if Congress thinks the president is really out of line they can boot him. It is quite a sophisticated set-up, really. You'd think in principle that the courts would decide when the presidency isn't following the law, but the actual power to punish the president lives in the legislature and it makes much more sense when examined in terms of what incentives exist.
LanceH 2y ago
> Lots of this junk is simply against the law. Perhaps. A lot of it is also the flip side of an executive order conjuring more government into existence. The escalation of executive order from administration to administration, and the reliance on courts to make law results in what we have going on today. Everyone was perfectly fine with the President doing whatever he wanted a couple months ago. Everyone was fine with the vague executive orders being treated as law. At some point one party needs reign in the presidency while they have it. Democrats chose not to, then ran a losing campaign with a candidate voters did not nominate. Neither party is principled on a national level. There are some individual exceptions, but they are few and far between.
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  > Everyone was perfectly fine with the President doing whatever he wanted a couple months ago. Everyone was fine with the president doing whatever he wanted a couple of months ago because he didn't abuse his power like the new guy is. When you have someone with self control and the best interests of the country in mind, you don't actually need to reign in presidential power like you suggest, and we just haven't had a Trump in the presidency enough to call a constitutional convention. > At some point one party needs reign in the presidency while they have it. Democrats chose not to, then ran a losing campaign with a candidate voters did not nominate. This is impossible given the threshold for a constitutional convention. 2/3rd for proposal and 3/4th for ratification, we are just way too divided for that unless Trump messes up really really bad and we actually survive as the same country to pick up the pieces. The supreme court is the only other body that could interpret the law to restrict executive power, but it is stacked with Trump appointees who have new interpretations of unrestricted executive power, so we shouldn't expect much from them.
  - ModernMech 2y ago
    > This is impossible given the threshold for a constitutional convention. Well, it's also just not true that Democrats didn't reign in the power of the presidency when they had control. They passed a bill and Biden signed it which makes it even more explicitly illegal for President to impound money like Trump tried last term, and is again doing now. That's why we can emphatically say what he's doing is illegal, because he's breaking a law that was passed to curb exactly what he's doing. Moreover, when Trump argued in court he had broad presidential immunity, Biden argued against that position, thus arguing to limit his own power. It's hard to claim both sides abuse power when one side claiming total presidential immunity to use the military to kill his political opponents, and the other side says no. The difference couldn't be more stark.
scarab92 2y ago
To be clear, the article headline is deceptive clickbait. NIH budgets aren't being cut. The NIH is simply requiring that at least 85% of the grant value goes to the actual grant recipients, rather than being siphoned off by the university for administration expenses. At most universities this change has no impact, since they weren't taking more than 15% to begin with. This change mainly impacts Harvard and similar, as they were previously taking extortionate cuts. Harvard was taking 69%!
- Ferret7446 2y ago
  I appreciate the facts in our current outrage and misinformation economy.
  - nathanaldensr 2y ago
    As do I. I was going to post the same thanks. Hacker News has become Reddit with these stupid political posts. It's crazy how far this site has fallen in such a short time.
    - jaybrendansmith 2y ago
      I truly appreciate your viewpoint, but we are in strange times and we need a place to have a rational discussion about them. There are very few places on the Internet where this can occur that aren't completely polarized already. Since this current political situation impacts so many Hacker News topics, including science, research funding, employment, job postings, economy, startup culture, in my view it is worthy of a few posts.
- sega_sai 2y ago
  The fact that the budget is being reduced after it has been negotiated means a cut. And you obviously have no facts to back up your claim that this money was used for "adminstration expenses"
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
giardini 2y ago
alabastervlog says "Many actions the administration has taken are illegal. " Not to pick on albastervlog specifically but HN is filling with posts like the one above, stating "this is illegal, that is illegal", posted by non-lawyers who have no idea whatsoever what is, and what is not, truly illegal. Why state something is illegal when the statement is false or ambiguous at best? What does it contribute? Why not instead state the simpler truth: "I don't like that!" or "I disagree with that!" and then get on with the rest of an argument? This forum is losing relevance b/c posters have - forgotten about manners and - forgotten about the logical fallacies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
- intermerda 2y ago
  You do realize that many of these actions have been deemed illegal by the courts, right? > forgotten about manners Why are you complaining about manners? Why not just say "I like that!" or "I agree with that!" and then get on with the rest of an argument? See where this is going? > - forgotten about the logical fallacies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies This isn't your high school debate club. But just to humor you, you are engaging in "fallacy fallacy" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
- alabastervlog 2y ago
  When there are things like laws that say "Inspectors general can only be fired after 30 days notice to Congress, and for-cause, which reason must be provided to Congress" it's not exactly a leap to say it's illegal when a president summarily fires a whole bunch of them effective immediately for vague reasons with no notice to Congress. For example. [EDIT] Bluntly, if you think that was some kind of slanted or out-there take, you aren't paying nearly enough attention.

ivraatiems 2y ago

We're well past the point where something being illegal or not matters whatsoever. I'm surprised federal court rulings are being listened to at all, really. I'm not sure why they are.

selectodude 2y ago
They really aren’t. Lots of contempt of court happening by the executive branch.

closewith 2y ago

Are you sure that the rule of law in the US is strong enough to avert a dictatorship?

jachee 2y ago
If the military upholds their oath to the Constitution, we should never have a dictatorship.
- btilly 2y ago
  That's why Trump just did a purge of top generals and lawyers in the military.
- tastyfreeze 2y ago
  And that military action would be called a coup despite being the expected outcome of an attempted dictator.
- arp242 2y ago
  The military getting involved is an absolute last resort type thing. And comes with risks of its own: military coups/juntas that started out as a legitimate dethroning of a dictator are not unheard of.

D13Fd 2y ago

> I give it 50/50 they do that. Do they even need to, though? If the president cannot be prosecuted for any official acts, and has the power to pardon any subordinate for ignoring the law, and to fire (and then prosecute) anyone who insists on following the law, what does the law matter?

modzu 2y ago
[flagged]
- daveguy 2y ago
  Nah.
- noduerme 2y ago
  That's a demented way of looking at the world, and it's disproven by the historical success of America as a republic, compared with countries in which "survival of the fittest" is the only rule, like Russia, or pick any dictatorship. Survival of the fittest leads to dictatorship; dictatorships stagnate, because they spend all their energy only on maintaining power. They are efficient in one sense, at maintaining order. But they are centralized and limited in throughput and therefore are never dynamic systems capable of growth and innovation.
throwaway48476 2y ago
The path we went down starting with Lincoln and the imperial presidency has finally fully manifested.
roenxi 2y ago
The mechanism seems to rest on the principle of separation of powers - Congress is empowered both to write the laws, and to remove presidents. That means that there can't be a major misalignment between Congress and the executive, because if Congress thinks the president is really out of line they can boot him. It is quite a sophisticated set-up, really. You'd think in principle that the courts would decide when the presidency isn't following the law, but the actual power to punish the president lives in the legislature and it makes much more sense when examined in terms of what incentives exist.

LanceH 2y ago

> Lots of this junk is simply against the law. Perhaps. A lot of it is also the flip side of an executive order conjuring more government into existence. The escalation of executive order from administration to administration, and the reliance on courts to make law results in what we have going on today. Everyone was perfectly fine with the President doing whatever he wanted a couple months ago. Everyone was fine with the vague executive orders being treated as law. At some point one party needs reign in the presidency while they have it. Democrats chose not to, then ran a losing campaign with a candidate voters did not nominate. Neither party is principled on a national level. There are some individual exceptions, but they are few and far between.

seanmcdirmid 2y ago
> Everyone was perfectly fine with the President doing whatever he wanted a couple months ago. Everyone was fine with the president doing whatever he wanted a couple of months ago because he didn't abuse his power like the new guy is. When you have someone with self control and the best interests of the country in mind, you don't actually need to reign in presidential power like you suggest, and we just haven't had a Trump in the presidency enough to call a constitutional convention. > At some point one party needs reign in the presidency while they have it. Democrats chose not to, then ran a losing campaign with a candidate voters did not nominate. This is impossible given the threshold for a constitutional convention. 2/3rd for proposal and 3/4th for ratification, we are just way too divided for that unless Trump messes up really really bad and we actually survive as the same country to pick up the pieces. The supreme court is the only other body that could interpret the law to restrict executive power, but it is stacked with Trump appointees who have new interpretations of unrestricted executive power, so we shouldn't expect much from them.
- ModernMech 2y ago
  > This is impossible given the threshold for a constitutional convention. Well, it's also just not true that Democrats didn't reign in the power of the presidency when they had control. They passed a bill and Biden signed it which makes it even more explicitly illegal for President to impound money like Trump tried last term, and is again doing now. That's why we can emphatically say what he's doing is illegal, because he's breaking a law that was passed to curb exactly what he's doing. Moreover, when Trump argued in court he had broad presidential immunity, Biden argued against that position, thus arguing to limit his own power. It's hard to claim both sides abuse power when one side claiming total presidential immunity to use the military to kill his political opponents, and the other side says no. The difference couldn't be more stark.

scarab92 2y ago

To be clear, the article headline is deceptive clickbait. NIH budgets aren't being cut. The NIH is simply requiring that at least 85% of the grant value goes to the actual grant recipients, rather than being siphoned off by the university for administration expenses. At most universities this change has no impact, since they weren't taking more than 15% to begin with. This change mainly impacts Harvard and similar, as they were previously taking extortionate cuts. Harvard was taking 69%!

Ferret7446 2y ago
I appreciate the facts in our current outrage and misinformation economy.
- nathanaldensr 2y ago
  As do I. I was going to post the same thanks. Hacker News has become Reddit with these stupid political posts. It's crazy how far this site has fallen in such a short time.
  - jaybrendansmith 2y ago
    I truly appreciate your viewpoint, but we are in strange times and we need a place to have a rational discussion about them. There are very few places on the Internet where this can occur that aren't completely polarized already. Since this current political situation impacts so many Hacker News topics, including science, research funding, employment, job postings, economy, startup culture, in my view it is worthy of a few posts.
sega_sai 2y ago
The fact that the budget is being reduced after it has been negotiated means a cut. And you obviously have no facts to back up your claim that this money was used for "adminstration expenses"
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

giardini 2y ago

alabastervlog says "Many actions the administration has taken are illegal. " Not to pick on albastervlog specifically but HN is filling with posts like the one above, stating "this is illegal, that is illegal", posted by non-lawyers who have no idea whatsoever what is, and what is not, truly illegal. Why state something is illegal when the statement is false or ambiguous at best? What does it contribute? Why not instead state the simpler truth: "I don't like that!" or "I disagree with that!" and then get on with the rest of an argument? This forum is losing relevance b/c posters have - forgotten about manners and - forgotten about the logical fallacies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

intermerda 2y ago
You do realize that many of these actions have been deemed illegal by the courts, right? > forgotten about manners Why are you complaining about manners? Why not just say "I like that!" or "I agree with that!" and then get on with the rest of an argument? See where this is going? > - forgotten about the logical fallacies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies This isn't your high school debate club. But just to humor you, you are engaging in "fallacy fallacy" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
alabastervlog 2y ago
When there are things like laws that say "Inspectors general can only be fired after 30 days notice to Congress, and for-cause, which reason must be provided to Congress" it's not exactly a leap to say it's illegal when a president summarily fires a whole bunch of them effective immediately for vague reasons with no notice to Congress. For example. [EDIT] Bluntly, if you think that was some kind of slanted or out-there take, you aren't paying nearly enough attention.