31 ms·

I agree with you here. I also think that (allegedly) ignoring federal statutes while reorganizing the government is pretty clearly an official act. So everythin

by runako 1y ago

I agree with you here. I also think that (allegedly) ignoring federal statutes while reorganizing the government is pretty clearly an official act. So everything we are discussing is an official act. If the Executive isn’t bound to follow federal appropriations laws, there’s no principled reason why he should have to follow other federal laws. And as you show, the president has full criminal immunity as well. What other laws are there that might limit his conduct? I’m of the understanding that where we are now is the only potential check on Presidents going forward is impeachment and removal from office. It’s a blunt instrument, but apparently there are no other applicable mechanisms.

xyzzyz 1y ago
There are all kinds of laws that limit president's conduct, but the point is that there is no way to actually enforce these laws, other than voluntary compliance by the president and his government, and impeachment by legislature. This is by design, that's how the separation of powers works.
- runako 1y ago
  These is a different way of stating my point that the President is not bound by laws, only politics.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
rayiner 1y ago
> What other laws are there that might limit his conduct? I’m of the understanding that where we are now is the only potential check on Presidents going forward is impeachment and removal from office. It’s a blunt instrument, but apparently there are no other applicable mechanisms. The primary check on the President is elections, not “the law.” Secondarily, there’s impeachment, and Congress’s power of the purse. Those are the main checks on the executive. We have this 20th century conception of “the rule of law,” where we imagine this neutral, independent “justice system” as the base layer on top of which the elected branches operate. Like the lowest level of an operating system kernel. But if you look at the debates at the constitutional convention, and read the federalist papers and anti-federalist papers, that’s not the system the founders actually created. The founders didn’t trust anyone to neutrally enforce the law. You won’t find anywhere in those primary sources where the founders envisioned some “rule of law” where private litigants use the court to micromanage executive policy. Instead, what we have is a game of rock-paper-scissors, where no branch is assumed to be “independent” and no branch is a “base layer of the operating system.” Courts can declare the law, but can’t force the President to do something. But if the President doesn’t listen to the court, he can be voted out of office, or impeached, or Congress can withhold funding for the administration. That is a complete system of checks and balances as it is.
- selimthegrim 1y ago
  You would think the Andrew Johnson trial would have buried impeachment as a tactic, like in the UK.
- runako 1y ago
  > The primary check on the President is elections, not “the law.” Secondarily, there’s impeachment, and Congress’s power of the purse. Right, that's where this discussion started. What we are looking at right now is the erosion of that second piece, Congress's power of the purse. The Constitutional checks and balances (not the 20th-century stuff you detail) doesn't work as well without this key Article I power. I have not seen it explained under what principle this power of Congress has been arrogated instead to the Executive.
  - rayiner 1y ago
    It wasn’t done based on principle but laziness. Congress undoubtedly has the power to leave some particulars of how to spend money up to the President. But Congress has abused that power to basically provide the executive with giant slush funds with only the vaguest directions as to how to use that money. Congress can take that power back at any time.
- oa335 1y ago
  > You won’t find anywhere in those primary sources where the founders envisioned some “rule of law” where private litigants use the court to micromanage executive policy. Marbury vs Madison established the judiciaries authority to review actions of the executive. That was in 1803. Regarding rule of law, in that opinion: > When the heads of the departments of the Government are the political or confidential officers of the Executive, merely to execute the will of the President, or rather to act in cases in which the Executive possesses a constitutional or legal discretion, nothing can be more perfectly clear than that their acts are only politically examinable. But where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, it seems equally clear that the individual who considers himself injured has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy.
gamblor956 1y ago
You're not wrong. If the President does not follow a federal law, he is not performing an official act, and he is not immune from criminal liability. If he chooses to continue to ignore the law, the solution isn't the courts. It's the Second Amendment, which was added to the Bill of Rights as a check on exactly this (though the Founders intended for it to be exercised through the States' militias, not the citizens directly, based on the text of the first half of the amendment).
- otterley 1y ago
  Before resorting to violence, the remedy is to impeach and convict the President, and, failing that, elect a replacement President. Only if the incumbent fails to cede authority should further consideration be taken. And, to be honest, I’m not really sure that a bunch of unorganized wingnuts that slobber all over their big-man toys are going to prevail over the National Guard, if the latter remain loyal to the President, and a lot of innocent lives will probably be lost due to militia incompetence.
- rayiner 1y ago
  So we should’ve used the 2A because Biden ignored immigration law?
  - gamblor956 1y ago
    Biden didn't ignore immigration law. He executed it. He arrested more immigrants than Trump did during his first term. Republicans simply disagreed about how he was executing the laws because they wanted political talking points (and notably at Trump's urging, shot down a number of proposed immigration reforms that would have reduced illegal immigration, cut down on the asylum loophole, and make it easier to deport immigrants with criminal records...Laken Riley was killed by an illegal immigrant who was still in the country because Republicans blocked the laws that would have deported him.). Trump isn't following the laws at all. He's simply issuing "executive orders" without regard to the powers or limitations of the executive as stated by the Constitution or the U.S. Code. Almost every single one of his executive orders during his second term violates a Constitutional prohibition in some way, and now that the initial shock to the system is over you're seeing judges overturn almost all of his orders...Even judges appointed by Trump during his first term are starting to overturn his executive orders. So Trump's response was to call for the arrest of these judges. And to hint that violence would be appropriate way of removing them from. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If Trump gets killed by a mob this term, it's going to be because he kept suggesting that violence was the way to deal with his opponents.

by runako 1y ago

xyzzyz 1y ago

There are all kinds of laws that limit president's conduct, but the point is that there is no way to actually enforce these laws, other than voluntary compliance by the president and his government, and impeachment by legislature. This is by design, that's how the separation of powers works.

runako 1y ago
These is a different way of stating my point that the President is not bound by laws, only politics.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

rayiner 1y ago

> What other laws are there that might limit his conduct? I’m of the understanding that where we are now is the only potential check on Presidents going forward is impeachment and removal from office. It’s a blunt instrument, but apparently there are no other applicable mechanisms. The primary check on the President is elections, not “the law.” Secondarily, there’s impeachment, and Congress’s power of the purse. Those are the main checks on the executive. We have this 20th century conception of “the rule of law,” where we imagine this neutral, independent “justice system” as the base layer on top of which the elected branches operate. Like the lowest level of an operating system kernel. But if you look at the debates at the constitutional convention, and read the federalist papers and anti-federalist papers, that’s not the system the founders actually created. The founders didn’t trust anyone to neutrally enforce the law. You won’t find anywhere in those primary sources where the founders envisioned some “rule of law” where private litigants use the court to micromanage executive policy. Instead, what we have is a game of rock-paper-scissors, where no branch is assumed to be “independent” and no branch is a “base layer of the operating system.” Courts can declare the law, but can’t force the President to do something. But if the President doesn’t listen to the court, he can be voted out of office, or impeached, or Congress can withhold funding for the administration. That is a complete system of checks and balances as it is.

selimthegrim 1y ago
You would think the Andrew Johnson trial would have buried impeachment as a tactic, like in the UK.
runako 1y ago
> The primary check on the President is elections, not “the law.” Secondarily, there’s impeachment, and Congress’s power of the purse. Right, that's where this discussion started. What we are looking at right now is the erosion of that second piece, Congress's power of the purse. The Constitutional checks and balances (not the 20th-century stuff you detail) doesn't work as well without this key Article I power. I have not seen it explained under what principle this power of Congress has been arrogated instead to the Executive.
- rayiner 1y ago
  It wasn’t done based on principle but laziness. Congress undoubtedly has the power to leave some particulars of how to spend money up to the President. But Congress has abused that power to basically provide the executive with giant slush funds with only the vaguest directions as to how to use that money. Congress can take that power back at any time.
oa335 1y ago
> You won’t find anywhere in those primary sources where the founders envisioned some “rule of law” where private litigants use the court to micromanage executive policy. Marbury vs Madison established the judiciaries authority to review actions of the executive. That was in 1803. Regarding rule of law, in that opinion: > When the heads of the departments of the Government are the political or confidential officers of the Executive, merely to execute the will of the President, or rather to act in cases in which the Executive possesses a constitutional or legal discretion, nothing can be more perfectly clear than that their acts are only politically examinable. But where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, it seems equally clear that the individual who considers himself injured has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy.

gamblor956 1y ago

You're not wrong. If the President does not follow a federal law, he is not performing an official act, and he is not immune from criminal liability. If he chooses to continue to ignore the law, the solution isn't the courts. It's the Second Amendment, which was added to the Bill of Rights as a check on exactly this (though the Founders intended for it to be exercised through the States' militias, not the citizens directly, based on the text of the first half of the amendment).

otterley 1y ago
Before resorting to violence, the remedy is to impeach and convict the President, and, failing that, elect a replacement President. Only if the incumbent fails to cede authority should further consideration be taken. And, to be honest, I’m not really sure that a bunch of unorganized wingnuts that slobber all over their big-man toys are going to prevail over the National Guard, if the latter remain loyal to the President, and a lot of innocent lives will probably be lost due to militia incompetence.
rayiner 1y ago
So we should’ve used the 2A because Biden ignored immigration law?
- gamblor956 1y ago
  Biden didn't ignore immigration law. He executed it. He arrested more immigrants than Trump did during his first term. Republicans simply disagreed about how he was executing the laws because they wanted political talking points (and notably at Trump's urging, shot down a number of proposed immigration reforms that would have reduced illegal immigration, cut down on the asylum loophole, and make it easier to deport immigrants with criminal records...Laken Riley was killed by an illegal immigrant who was still in the country because Republicans blocked the laws that would have deported him.). Trump isn't following the laws at all. He's simply issuing "executive orders" without regard to the powers or limitations of the executive as stated by the Constitution or the U.S. Code. Almost every single one of his executive orders during his second term violates a Constitutional prohibition in some way, and now that the initial shock to the system is over you're seeing judges overturn almost all of his orders...Even judges appointed by Trump during his first term are starting to overturn his executive orders. So Trump's response was to call for the arrest of these judges. And to hint that violence would be appropriate way of removing them from. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If Trump gets killed by a mob this term, it's going to be because he kept suggesting that violence was the way to deal with his opponents.