6 ms·

America is a democracy, not a bureaucracy. The executive branch is governed by a single representative elected by the people. It is becoming increasingly appa

• otterley 1y ago
  This is true only to the extent that Congress delegates its power to the executive. Per Article I of the Constitution, Congress has the plenary power of the purse. So if it decides to spend $X on something specific, it has to be spent on whatever that something is. The President doesn't have discretion in that case.
  • ok_dad 1y ago
    In fact, when Congress passes a budget, it’s actually a law that must be executed by the executive. There are actually other laws against impoundment and against the executive changing the budget. Trump is literally breaking the law but no one really cares to discuss that anymore since the gish gallop has be so quick this term.
    • otterley 1y ago
      I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that Trump is breaking the law. I'm no expert in NSF funding, but Congress may well have delegated its authority over how the funds in the pool are to be allocated and distributed to the executive. If someone has more knowledge to contribute, that'd be most welcome.
      • xracy 1y ago
        Take a read of the constitution? Why do you assume that the person you're responding to is "jumping to conclusions." Feels like you're just ignoring what they have to say in the guise of "asking for more knowledge" when you don't actually know if they don't have the knowledge because of your own lack of expertise. https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Power-of-the-Purse/ https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Po...
        • otterley 1y ago
          > Why do you assume that the person you're responding to is "jumping to conclusions.” Because they said “Trump is literally breaking the law.” That hasn’t been established yet. I happen to be an attorney as well as a hacker, and I worked in a Federal district court, so perhaps give me the benefit of the doubt that I just might know what I’m talking about. If you have legitimate questions of your own, I’d be happy to try to answer them.
      • runako 1y ago
        Clear example here is USAID. Congress has directed, as recently as March 2025, that a specific amount of funds be spent on the statutory goals of the US Agency for International Development. (I have not checked, but I am sure federal law also goes into some detail about what tasks USAID needs to perform.) I do not imagine it is congruent with the law to simply fire all the staff and shut down USAID (or "merge" it into State). The laws are all public and people are free to read that a few weeks ago, Congress directed the Executive to spend money as USAID for the statutory purposes behind USAID. That part is pretty clear.
        • otterley 1y ago
          The situations are a little different. With NSF grants, the question is whether the President can redistribute funding away from applicants affiliated with specific institutions he doesn’t like (my first approximation: probably). With USAID, the question is whether the President has the authority to disband an entire Agency established and appropriated by Congress (22 U.S.C. 6563) (my first approximation: probably not).
    • Detrytus 1y ago
      Well, it's not that simple. Yes, Congress passes the bill saying that X billions of dollars have to be spent on universities, but that bill does not name every single university in US as beneficiary. That's what executive branch is for: to work out the details of how to implement the law passed by Congress. So, Trump taking money from Harvard and giving it to say, a community college in Tampa is technically still correct implementation of the law. I mean, it all depends if he can defend his decision in court, because of course he cannot discriminate based on race, ethnicity, political affiliation etc.
      • superturkey650 1y ago
        Why can’t he discriminate on political affiliation?
        • deleted 1y ago
          [deleted]
        • xracy 1y ago
          Because our system would fall apart every 4 years when a different party started diverting money to their cronies. How corrupt do you want a nation to be?
          • vaidhy 1y ago
            But it is not illegal!! Morals or ethics do not necessarily determine if it is legal.
            • otterley 1y ago
              It may not be unlawful, but institutions work best when there is stability of practice, even across leadership changes. Otherwise, you can’t do any long-range planning or undertake complex experiments or investments that could take years to bear fruit. We used to have a shared sense of custom and mores that helped preserve this stability. But that seems to be out the window now, and regrettably so.
          • deleted 1y ago
    • SoftTalker 1y ago
      AIUI Congress has not passed a budget in a long time. They pass "continuing resolutions" and they fund broad categories of spending and leave the details up to the funded entities (which then falls under the executive branch). If Congress wants to fund something specific, they need to pass a law or budget that names that specific thing and how much they are appropriating. They aren't doing that.
      • deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      • SR2Z 1y ago
        There are many situations where Congress has actually specified in detail where the money should go. These are also being ignored.
      • ok_dad 1y ago
        It really does seem like Congress has wanted a dictatorial executive for a while doesn’t it? I wasn’t aware they had shirked their duty for so long.
  • NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
    >This is true only to the extent that Congress delegates its power to the executive. Directly or indirectly the people of the United States have power over all three branches. One can easily make strong arguments that the problem here is both that Congress as abdicated its powers to the executive (rather than delegated), and that the people have ignored that Congress should retain those powers while focusing on the presidency as the important election to the exclusion of all others. This has been going on for decades or longer. >So if it decides to spend $X on something specific, it has to be spent on whatever that something is. The President doesn't have discretion in that case. Sure. Definitely means he can't spend it on something else. But how much wiggle room is in this? Does it say on which day, hour, and minute it must be spent? Sure, it's probably tied at least to the fiscal year (in which case it needs to be spent by September, one would suppose), but that's months away. Does allocating a budget imply that it needs to be spent at all? If some bureau or department fails to spend all of its budget, has the president somehow committed some treason-adjacent crime, or is that just thriftiness? Are these funds earmarked for specific universities? What if he just goes shopping for alternative recipients? To say that he has no discretion at all is absurd, if that were the case then Congress would have mandated that these be automatic electronic bank transfers without any human intervention (or oversight). The nature of the job not only implies but practically demands some (if limited) discretion.
    • bootsmann 1y ago
      > If some bureau or department fails to spend all of its budget, has the president somehow committed some treason-adjacent crime, or is that just thriftiness? Yes, he has. It is not the presidents power to judge whether the money he spent in defiance of congress is sufficient, it is congress that holds this power. If congress thinks they should spend less, they can settle this by changing the budget. What would you say if the next democratic president simply refused to spend a single dollar assigned to ICE to "be thrifty"?
      • otterley 1y ago
        Well, it’s unlikely to be “criminal” or “treason,” but it is unconstitutional. An aggrieved party can seek redress from the court to compel the executive to transfer the provisioned monies.
  • rayiner 1y ago
    > So if it decides to spend $X on something specific, it has to be spent on whatever that something is. The President doesn't have discretion in that case. But the Congress never did that. You won't find an appropriations bill where Congress allocated $X to Harvard and $Y to Princeton, etc. In fact, it did the opposite. Under Title VI, it empowered the executive branch to withhold money based on civil rights violations. And regardless of your view on Presidential power vis-a-vis executive branch agencies, 42 USC 2000d-1 specifically subordinates federal agencies' rules, regulations, and orders pursuant to Title VI to the authority of the "President."
    • otterley 1y ago
      We’re in agreement here. That’s why I mentioned in the first sentence that Congress can delegate certain spending decisions. But it’s not the default behavior as the Constitution defaults to Congress having sole plenary authority.
    • gamblor956 1y ago
      Right, under Title VI. Trump is not using Title VI to justify withholding federal funding. He's just withholding federal funding and his minions are coming up with the justification after the fact. And even then, it's insufficient, because Title VI requires an investigation and a fair amount of procedure.
      • SR2Z 1y ago
        This is one of the stupider things this administration does. They have the legal power to do lots of the things they're doing, but they are too incompetent to dot their is and cross their ts. Who knew that driving off everyone who was good at their job would make the administration less competent?
• epistasis 1y ago
  If a presidential candidate promises to break the law in his campaign, that does not give him the authority to break the law. We are a constitutional republic and the constitution must be followed. It's quite clear that the current President does not give a damn about the constitution, know anything about it, or have any compunction about blatant violation of the constitution. > Otherwise, all authority in the executive branch effectively belongs to the president and random midlevel bureaucrats can only exercise it on his behalf. This is factually wrong.
  • jimbokun 1y ago
    > If a presidential candidate promises to break the law in his campaign, that does not give him the authority to break the law. The Supreme Court ruled otherwise.
    • mrkstu 1y ago
      Sort of. He would still be breaking the law, it’s just that if it’s an ‘official act’ then the judiciary can’t do anything about it, just Congress via impeachment.
      • dcrazy 1y ago
        I think that opinion would have been less controversial if the President hadn’t openly advertised his intent to violate the law repeatedly. It’s not like the courts are rendered powerless if the President violates the law; any judgments they render are still binding on the parties, even if they require the parties act in ways contrary to the executive’s interpretation of the law. That still means something as long people continue to respect the judiciary. The dangerous game we’re playing is finding out whether that respect will continue.
        • DrillShopper 1y ago
          It also would have been much less controversial that, when asked, the Trump lawyer during oral arguments specifically dodged the question if the president can deploy Seal Team 6 to kill a political opponent. That choice is very telling as to what the next steps probably are, and none of them are good for this country.
• UncleMeat 1y ago
  > The judicial branch has authority to stop him but they're only supposed to use it if they are convinced that what he's doing is unconstitutional. This is not true. They can also stop him if what he is doing is illegal. Statute can absolutely constrain the executive.
  • boothby 1y ago
    > Statute can absolutely constrain the executive. This is an open question. The judicial branch has authority, on paper. But without means of enforcing that authority, it cannot truly constrain the executive.
    • kevin_thibedeau 1y ago
      Congress has a jail. He's already refused to answer to a subpoena. They can arrest him any time they want.
      • boothby 1y ago
        Congress has a jail, sure. But I and the comment I was responding to were regarding the judiciary. To put a finer point on it: if the president orders somebody to do something in violation of federal law, and then pardons them, can the law be enforced?
      • rayiner 1y ago
        Congress’s big hammer is impeachment. The smaller hammer is refusing to fund his administration. Between that and elections, that’s plenty of ways to keep the president in check.
    • mmooss 1y ago
      > This is an open question. It's not. Statute has constrained the executive for all of American history.
    • cantrecallmypwd 1y ago
      Read the RFCP. ArtIII judges can absolutely empower people other than USMS to carry out legal orders such as service of process and enforcement of contempt orders.
• mmooss 1y ago
  > The judicial branch has authority to stop him but they're only supposed to use it if they are convinced that what he's doing is unconstitutional. That omits a crucial issue that many amazingly overlook: The bar isn't constitutional but legal. Congress makes the laws, not the President. The President is bound by those laws, and in fact their job is to enforce the laws that Congress makes. They cannot do things unless empowered by the law.
• deepsun 1y ago
  > people didn't make a great choice Choices. Congress can overturn any president's order, but they do nothing.
• twic 1y ago
  There are many other democracies, and most do not have this problem. Yours is just an exceptionally poorly-designed one.
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• rayiner 1y ago
  > America is a democracy, not a bureaucracy What a turn of phrase! Love it.