4 ms·

I just don’t know how someone could possibly think this is a good thing unless they are in the executive branch reaping the direct benefits

DFHippie 11mo ago
That's always the question with this unitary executive business. They believe this is the government defined by the Constitution, regardless of precedent. Do they believe it is a good system of government? Do they believe this is the government intended or rather the government allowed by legal loophole, vagueness, or contradiction? Because it seems like they think the president should rule like a monarch because they happen to control the presidency at the current moment, not because it is a wise and effective system of government.
- CGMthrowaway 11mo ago
  The concept of independent agencies (that is, those overseen by Congress rather than the president) was controversial long before, and for far longer, than it wasn't.
  - hexator 11mo ago
    Yes but let's not pretend this isn't a new interpretation.
    - CGMthrowaway 11mo ago
      It's not, really. In Seila Law v. CFPB (2020) the Supreme Court ruled that even directors seemingly protected by for-cause language (which the FCC charter does not have) can be removed at will unless the agency in question "exercises no part of the executive power" and is "an administrative body ... that performs ... specified duties as a legislative or as a judicial aid." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seila_Law_LLC_v._Consumer_Financial_Protection_Bureau https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seila_Law_LLC_v._Consumer_Fina...
      - hexator 11mo ago
        > 2020
      - SpicyLemonZest 11mo ago
        Do you have a case which was not about the executive authority of Donald Trump specifically? When we talk about how controversial or how new this interpretation is, the question I really have in mind is, why should I believe that it was developed out of genuine legal analysis and not an unprincipled desire to give Trump more power?
        CGMthrowaway 11mo ago
        Yeah the FCC is really about Weiner[1], if anything, not Humphrey's. Weiner established some precedent of "inferred" independence for agencies of a certain character (e.g. those whose function is wholly judicial or legislative) even when explicit removal protections are not included in the law. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiener_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiener_v._United_States
        rayiner 11mo ago
        Myers v. United States, written by Justice Taft in 1926: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/272/52/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/272/52/ It contains an exhaustive historical analysis explaining why the President has unrestricted power to remove executive officers. The “unprincipled” decisions were the ones like Humphrey’s Executor that sought to find ways to implement the 20th century concept of an “expert administrative state.” That’s not the government that was created in our constitution.
      - TSiege 11mo ago
        In 2020, five years ago, was essentially the exact same court as today, except KBJ replaced Breyer. The precedence in question dates to 1935 Humphrey's Executor v. United States where a conservative Supreme Court sought to cut back executive power of a liberal president. Now we have a conservative Supreme Court expanding executive power for a conservative president. If you think the Roberts court would have let Joe Biden have this much power well then I have a bridge and some student loans to sell you
    - rayiner 11mo ago
      It isn’t a new interpretation. More or less this same interpretation was articulated by Justice Taft in Myers v. United States in 1926: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers_v._United_States.
- ike2792 11mo ago
  It's a fair question to ask "who are independent executive agency heads accountable to" in a constitutional context. It is true that the Executive Branch has grown far beyond what the Founding Fathers could have imagined, but the idea of a unitary executive is that the President is responsible and accountable for everything that happens in the Executive Branch. If the voters don't like what the Executive Branch is doing, they can replace the President in the next election. What happens if voters don't like what independent executive agencies are doing? There's no democratic recourse. Think of a scenario where a President was elected with a large-ish majority and promised during the campaign to change broadband regulations to reduce broadband prices across the country. Unfortunately, the FCC commissioners were all appointed by the previous president and block this policy change that the voters clearly support. How does that square with democratic accountability?
  - techblueberry 11mo ago
    The president should be the weakest branch of government. If laws need to change, congress should do it. That is democratic accountability.
    - ike2792 11mo ago
      The problem is that Congress has delegated a lot of its traditional law making power to the Executive Branch. Laws are written in vague ways with executive agencies given liberty to implement as they see fit. This gives a lot of additional power to the President (who can at least be dealt with by impeachment or being voted out in the next election) as well as independent executive agency heads (who can't be directly fired by anybody). I agree that Congress should be the ones passing laws as the excessive delegation of lawmaking by Congress is what's gotten us into the current situation
      - adgjlsfhk1 11mo ago
        none of the authority Congress has delegated has been delegated irrevocably. if you want to change how the head of the FCC is appointed there's this thing called a law that can't be passed to change it
- rayiner 11mo ago
  How can you cite “precedent” when Myers v. United States decided this issue in favor of the unitary executive back in 1926? The administrative state that exists today was only facilitated by the FDR Supreme Court overruling a bunch of precedents. Go read the Federalist Papers. The founders thought very hard about who should exercise which powers and how they should be selected. They did not intend for 99% of the actual government operations to be run by “independent” executive officials that were insulated from elections. That’s something we made up in the 20th century in response to trendy ideas about “scientific government.”
  - zimpenfish 11mo ago
    > The founders thought very hard about who should exercise which powers and how they should be selected. Which would be perfectly fine as a basis if we were still in the 18th century. Things are, I believe, somewhat different now and what a bunch of rich old white men thought then isn't all that relevant now except as a historical oddity.
    - rayiner 11mo ago
      If you think what the founders said doesn’t matter because they’re dead white guys, isn’t that an argument for giving more power to the guy who won the election? Because surely the dead hand of the founders is the only thing that has the authority to overrule the elected President. It has to be a dichotomy, right? You either go by what the constitution meant to those who wrote it, because that’s how written agreements work, or otherwise you go with what the mob wants. How can there be some third option?
      - archagon 11mo ago
        No, why would it have to be a dichotomy? That doesn't make any sense. For example, the Catholic Church is neither (solely) defined by a set of 2,000 year old writings, nor is it under strict authoritarian rule by the elected Pope. The Church has been gradually sculpted and steered by centuries of councils, disagreements and reconciliations, power struggles, competing institutions, and much more. It is its own thing, defined by precedent and history and nearly unrecognizable when compared across centuries.
dfxm12 11mo ago
Reading up on the history of the Unitary Executive Theory may provide some background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory In this case, Trump is easily bought and isn't very concerned with governing himself (compared to playing golf or designing ballrooms). With this in mind, even people outside the executive branch, or even the USA are benefiting.
- stronglikedan 11mo ago
  [dead]
  - lesuorac 11mo ago
    "least"? If you have 2 million dollars lying around you can commit any federal crimes and buy a pardon. Which may seem like a lot but also consider if you're doing something like funding literally terrorism it's probably not that hard to scrounge up 2 million. You don't go to federal jail for jay-walking. If that's not a good example then consider TrumpCoin where literally Trump meet with the largest holders of the coin (i.e. people that paid the most; at least intended too).
  - SpicyLemonZest 11mo ago
    He's been caught on TV, in the Oval Office, accepting gold bars from business executives. I don't understand what you hope to gain by lying about this.
  - lenerdenator 11mo ago
    He's by far the most bought. You don't get to have (or in his case, somewhat maintain) the wealth that he so often brags about unless you are willing to be bought.
  - mapontosevenths 11mo ago
    Where did you get the idea that he's the least bought? It's factually inaccurate. He literally publicly offered oil executives whatever they wanted for a billion dollars, and though he didn't make that much (that we can prove) has been delivering on that promise since. [0] While being "honest" in the sense of "staying bought" and delivering the promised graft is somewhat commendable, it's not exactly evidence that he holds some sort of moral high ground. [0] https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/4961820-oil-bigwigs-open-wallets-for-trump-after-billion-dollar-request/ https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/4961820-oil-bi...
rayiner 11mo ago
It depends on whether you think elections are better than “independent civil servants.” The system the founders created was one where the executive branch would be subject to the whims of the people via regular elections of the President. In the late 19th and early 20th century, folks like Woodrow Wilson came up with this idea of the administrative state run by independent expert civil servants: https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/the-study-of-administration-2/ https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/the-study-of-ad.... The concept arose from Wilson’s hatred of democracy and immigration: > The bulk of mankind is rigidly unphilosophical, and nowadays the bulk of mankind votes. A truth must become not only plain but also commonplace before it will be seen by the people who go to their work very early in the morning; and not to act upon it must involve great and pinching inconveniences before these same people will make up their minds to act upon it. > And where is this unphilosophical bulk of mankind more multifarious in its composition than in the United States? To know the public mind of this country, one must know the mind, not of Americans of the older stocks only, but also of Irishmen, of Germans, of Negroes. In order to get a footing for new doctrine, one must influence minds cast in every mold of race, minds inheriting every bias of environment, warped by the histories of a score of different nations, warmed or chilled, closed or expanded by almost every climate of the globe. The idea of “independent agencies” staffed by neutral civil servants arises directly from this skepticism of democracy and voters.
- anthem2025 11mo ago
  [dead]
- enraged_camel 11mo ago
  "Independent agencies don’t exist" is not a serious description of how U.S. statutes and doctrine work. "Independent agency" is not a vibes-based label. It's standard terminology for agencies Congress structures to be somewhat insulated from direct presidential control (e.g. multi-member commissions with fixed terms and (often) for-cause removal). Congress has, in fact, established a number of such agencies headed by multi-member bodies whose officers may only be removed by the President "for cause." [1] The Constitution may not use the modern civics phrase "executive branch," but it plainly creates what we now call one: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President..." Even if we grant the semantic point, it doesn't prove the legal conclusion you want. Congress's authority to create agencies and offices and design their basic structures (subject to constitutional limits) is well-recognized. [2] You're also wrong to treat Myers v. United States as if it ended the discussion. Myers involved a purely executive officer (a postmaster) and is part of a broader removal-power line of cases. [3] Humphrey’s Executor (1935) limited the sweep of Myers in the context of independent commissions by upholding Congress's ability to restrict removal of FTC commissioners to specified causes (e.g. "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office"). [4] Your analogy to "congressional aides" and "judicial law clerks" is a category error. Aides/clerks are staff whose authority flows through, and is controlled by, constitutional officers. Independent commissions are Congress-created offices exercising delegated statutory authority, and the question is how far Congress may structure that delegation (appointments, terms, partisan-balance requirements, and sometimes removal limits) consistent with separation of powers. Finally, the Woodrow Wilson citation is doing sleight of hand. The passage you quote is about insulating administration from day-to-day politics ("administrative questions are not political questions") and it indeed contains elitist/racist language about voters. [5] But (1) that’s an argument about civil service/administration, not a dispositive argument about the constitutionality of independent commissions, and (2) it's historically confused to imply this is a late/progressive "invention": as early as 1887 Congress created the ICC with explicit bipartisan-balance language and explicit for-cause removal language. [6] If you think Humphrey’s Executor was wrongly decided and should be overruled, that's an argument you can make. But pretending "independent agencies don't exist" (or that Myers settled everything) just isn't accurate as a description of U.S. law, and someone with your background and experience should know this. [1] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3-15-5/ALDE_00013111/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3... [2] https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45442 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45442 [3] https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/272us52 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/272us52 [4] https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/295us602 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/295us602 [5] https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/the-study-of-administration-2/ https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/the-study-of-ad... [6] https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/interstate-commerce-act https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/interstate-comm...

DFHippie 11mo ago

That's always the question with this unitary executive business. They believe this is the government defined by the Constitution, regardless of precedent. Do they believe it is a good system of government? Do they believe this is the government intended or rather the government allowed by legal loophole, vagueness, or contradiction? Because it seems like they think the president should rule like a monarch because they happen to control the presidency at the current moment, not because it is a wise and effective system of government.

CGMthrowaway 11mo ago
The concept of independent agencies (that is, those overseen by Congress rather than the president) was controversial long before, and for far longer, than it wasn't.
- hexator 11mo ago
  Yes but let's not pretend this isn't a new interpretation.
  - CGMthrowaway 11mo ago
    It's not, really. In Seila Law v. CFPB (2020) the Supreme Court ruled that even directors seemingly protected by for-cause language (which the FCC charter does not have) can be removed at will unless the agency in question "exercises no part of the executive power" and is "an administrative body ... that performs ... specified duties as a legislative or as a judicial aid." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seila_Law_LLC_v._Consumer_Financial_Protection_Bureau https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seila_Law_LLC_v._Consumer_Fina...
    - hexator 11mo ago
      > 2020
    - SpicyLemonZest 11mo ago
      Do you have a case which was not about the executive authority of Donald Trump specifically? When we talk about how controversial or how new this interpretation is, the question I really have in mind is, why should I believe that it was developed out of genuine legal analysis and not an unprincipled desire to give Trump more power?
      - CGMthrowaway 11mo ago
        Yeah the FCC is really about Weiner[1], if anything, not Humphrey's. Weiner established some precedent of "inferred" independence for agencies of a certain character (e.g. those whose function is wholly judicial or legislative) even when explicit removal protections are not included in the law. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiener_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiener_v._United_States
      - rayiner 11mo ago
        Myers v. United States, written by Justice Taft in 1926: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/272/52/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/272/52/ It contains an exhaustive historical analysis explaining why the President has unrestricted power to remove executive officers. The “unprincipled” decisions were the ones like Humphrey’s Executor that sought to find ways to implement the 20th century concept of an “expert administrative state.” That’s not the government that was created in our constitution.
    - TSiege 11mo ago
      In 2020, five years ago, was essentially the exact same court as today, except KBJ replaced Breyer. The precedence in question dates to 1935 Humphrey's Executor v. United States where a conservative Supreme Court sought to cut back executive power of a liberal president. Now we have a conservative Supreme Court expanding executive power for a conservative president. If you think the Roberts court would have let Joe Biden have this much power well then I have a bridge and some student loans to sell you
  - rayiner 11mo ago
    It isn’t a new interpretation. More or less this same interpretation was articulated by Justice Taft in Myers v. United States in 1926: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers_v._United_States.
ike2792 11mo ago
It's a fair question to ask "who are independent executive agency heads accountable to" in a constitutional context. It is true that the Executive Branch has grown far beyond what the Founding Fathers could have imagined, but the idea of a unitary executive is that the President is responsible and accountable for everything that happens in the Executive Branch. If the voters don't like what the Executive Branch is doing, they can replace the President in the next election. What happens if voters don't like what independent executive agencies are doing? There's no democratic recourse. Think of a scenario where a President was elected with a large-ish majority and promised during the campaign to change broadband regulations to reduce broadband prices across the country. Unfortunately, the FCC commissioners were all appointed by the previous president and block this policy change that the voters clearly support. How does that square with democratic accountability?
- techblueberry 11mo ago
  The president should be the weakest branch of government. If laws need to change, congress should do it. That is democratic accountability.
  - ike2792 11mo ago
    The problem is that Congress has delegated a lot of its traditional law making power to the Executive Branch. Laws are written in vague ways with executive agencies given liberty to implement as they see fit. This gives a lot of additional power to the President (who can at least be dealt with by impeachment or being voted out in the next election) as well as independent executive agency heads (who can't be directly fired by anybody). I agree that Congress should be the ones passing laws as the excessive delegation of lawmaking by Congress is what's gotten us into the current situation
    - adgjlsfhk1 11mo ago
      none of the authority Congress has delegated has been delegated irrevocably. if you want to change how the head of the FCC is appointed there's this thing called a law that can't be passed to change it
rayiner 11mo ago
How can you cite “precedent” when Myers v. United States decided this issue in favor of the unitary executive back in 1926? The administrative state that exists today was only facilitated by the FDR Supreme Court overruling a bunch of precedents. Go read the Federalist Papers. The founders thought very hard about who should exercise which powers and how they should be selected. They did not intend for 99% of the actual government operations to be run by “independent” executive officials that were insulated from elections. That’s something we made up in the 20th century in response to trendy ideas about “scientific government.”
- zimpenfish 11mo ago
  > The founders thought very hard about who should exercise which powers and how they should be selected. Which would be perfectly fine as a basis if we were still in the 18th century. Things are, I believe, somewhat different now and what a bunch of rich old white men thought then isn't all that relevant now except as a historical oddity.
  - rayiner 11mo ago
    If you think what the founders said doesn’t matter because they’re dead white guys, isn’t that an argument for giving more power to the guy who won the election? Because surely the dead hand of the founders is the only thing that has the authority to overrule the elected President. It has to be a dichotomy, right? You either go by what the constitution meant to those who wrote it, because that’s how written agreements work, or otherwise you go with what the mob wants. How can there be some third option?
    - archagon 11mo ago
      No, why would it have to be a dichotomy? That doesn't make any sense. For example, the Catholic Church is neither (solely) defined by a set of 2,000 year old writings, nor is it under strict authoritarian rule by the elected Pope. The Church has been gradually sculpted and steered by centuries of councils, disagreements and reconciliations, power struggles, competing institutions, and much more. It is its own thing, defined by precedent and history and nearly unrecognizable when compared across centuries.

dfxm12 11mo ago

Reading up on the history of the Unitary Executive Theory may provide some background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory In this case, Trump is easily bought and isn't very concerned with governing himself (compared to playing golf or designing ballrooms). With this in mind, even people outside the executive branch, or even the USA are benefiting.

stronglikedan 11mo ago
[dead]
- lesuorac 11mo ago
  "least"? If you have 2 million dollars lying around you can commit any federal crimes and buy a pardon. Which may seem like a lot but also consider if you're doing something like funding literally terrorism it's probably not that hard to scrounge up 2 million. You don't go to federal jail for jay-walking. If that's not a good example then consider TrumpCoin where literally Trump meet with the largest holders of the coin (i.e. people that paid the most; at least intended too).
- SpicyLemonZest 11mo ago
  He's been caught on TV, in the Oval Office, accepting gold bars from business executives. I don't understand what you hope to gain by lying about this.
- lenerdenator 11mo ago
  He's by far the most bought. You don't get to have (or in his case, somewhat maintain) the wealth that he so often brags about unless you are willing to be bought.
- mapontosevenths 11mo ago
  Where did you get the idea that he's the least bought? It's factually inaccurate. He literally publicly offered oil executives whatever they wanted for a billion dollars, and though he didn't make that much (that we can prove) has been delivering on that promise since. [0] While being "honest" in the sense of "staying bought" and delivering the promised graft is somewhat commendable, it's not exactly evidence that he holds some sort of moral high ground. [0] https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/4961820-oil-bigwigs-open-wallets-for-trump-after-billion-dollar-request/ https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/4961820-oil-bi...

rayiner 11mo ago

It depends on whether you think elections are better than “independent civil servants.” The system the founders created was one where the executive branch would be subject to the whims of the people via regular elections of the President. In the late 19th and early 20th century, folks like Woodrow Wilson came up with this idea of the administrative state run by independent expert civil servants: https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/the-study-of-administration-2/ https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/the-study-of-ad.... The concept arose from Wilson’s hatred of democracy and immigration: > The bulk of mankind is rigidly unphilosophical, and nowadays the bulk of mankind votes. A truth must become not only plain but also commonplace before it will be seen by the people who go to their work very early in the morning; and not to act upon it must involve great and pinching inconveniences before these same people will make up their minds to act upon it. > And where is this unphilosophical bulk of mankind more multifarious in its composition than in the United States? To know the public mind of this country, one must know the mind, not of Americans of the older stocks only, but also of Irishmen, of Germans, of Negroes. In order to get a footing for new doctrine, one must influence minds cast in every mold of race, minds inheriting every bias of environment, warped by the histories of a score of different nations, warmed or chilled, closed or expanded by almost every climate of the globe. The idea of “independent agencies” staffed by neutral civil servants arises directly from this skepticism of democracy and voters.

anthem2025 11mo ago
[dead]
enraged_camel 11mo ago
"Independent agencies don’t exist" is not a serious description of how U.S. statutes and doctrine work. "Independent agency" is not a vibes-based label. It's standard terminology for agencies Congress structures to be somewhat insulated from direct presidential control (e.g. multi-member commissions with fixed terms and (often) for-cause removal). Congress has, in fact, established a number of such agencies headed by multi-member bodies whose officers may only be removed by the President "for cause." [1] The Constitution may not use the modern civics phrase "executive branch," but it plainly creates what we now call one: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President..." Even if we grant the semantic point, it doesn't prove the legal conclusion you want. Congress's authority to create agencies and offices and design their basic structures (subject to constitutional limits) is well-recognized. [2] You're also wrong to treat Myers v. United States as if it ended the discussion. Myers involved a purely executive officer (a postmaster) and is part of a broader removal-power line of cases. [3] Humphrey’s Executor (1935) limited the sweep of Myers in the context of independent commissions by upholding Congress's ability to restrict removal of FTC commissioners to specified causes (e.g. "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office"). [4] Your analogy to "congressional aides" and "judicial law clerks" is a category error. Aides/clerks are staff whose authority flows through, and is controlled by, constitutional officers. Independent commissions are Congress-created offices exercising delegated statutory authority, and the question is how far Congress may structure that delegation (appointments, terms, partisan-balance requirements, and sometimes removal limits) consistent with separation of powers. Finally, the Woodrow Wilson citation is doing sleight of hand. The passage you quote is about insulating administration from day-to-day politics ("administrative questions are not political questions") and it indeed contains elitist/racist language about voters. [5] But (1) that’s an argument about civil service/administration, not a dispositive argument about the constitutionality of independent commissions, and (2) it's historically confused to imply this is a late/progressive "invention": as early as 1887 Congress created the ICC with explicit bipartisan-balance language and explicit for-cause removal language. [6] If you think Humphrey’s Executor was wrongly decided and should be overruled, that's an argument you can make. But pretending "independent agencies don't exist" (or that Myers settled everything) just isn't accurate as a description of U.S. law, and someone with your background and experience should know this. [1] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3-15-5/ALDE_00013111/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3... [2] https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45442 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45442 [3] https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/272us52 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/272us52 [4] https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/295us602 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/295us602 [5] https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/the-study-of-administration-2/ https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/the-study-of-ad... [6] https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/interstate-commerce-act https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/interstate-comm...