3 ms·

Calling it "civil service" instead of "deep state" does not make it any better. We don't have either in the Constitution so whatever you call it, it has to be r

Calling it "civil service" instead of "deep state" does not make it any better. We don't have either in the Constitution so whatever you call it, it has to be removed from power.

AnimalMuppet 7mo ago
And then what? The spoils system? Rampant incompetence? And, we have to get rid of it because it's not in the Constitution? You know what else isn't in the Constitution? DHS. The IRS. ICE. An enormous number of other agencies. The Constitution gives very little guidance on the Executive Branch, other than the President and Vice President. That does not mean that hiring people in federal agencies is unconstitutional! It just means that the Constitution is silent on the topic, neither requiring nor prohibiting very much.
- pandaman 7mo ago
  Then back to the system defined in the Constitution, it gives enough guidance. If you think the President is not enough for the Executive - amend the Constitution, used to be enough for ~200 years though.
  - AnimalMuppet 7mo ago
    The Constitution does not define a civil service system. You seem to interpret that as saying that any system is unconstitutional until the Constitution is amended to define one. That is... let's just call it "very much a minority interpretation". We are not going to either amend the Constitution nor abolish the civil service just because some pseudonymous online account says we should.
    - pandaman 7mo ago
      The Constitution defines just three branches of power, if the "civil service system" has a power and is not one of the branches then it unconstitutional by common sense and elementary logic. And this "civil servant system" evidentially has power and is not a part of either of the three branches (which are all enumerated in the Constitution) ergo it's an unconstitutional junta. >We are not going to either amend the Constitution nor abolish the civil service just because some pseudonymous online account says we should. Did not you participate in the mass crying out on this very site when DOGE had been firing the "civil servants"?
      - guelo 7mo ago
        The constitution says the president must "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". That means hiring people to enforce the laws, that's the civil servant system.
        pandaman 7mo ago
        That means the whole Executive branch is the president and if he can delegate his power to some other people he also should be able to revoke the delegation and fire those people, which is not the case now. The president is semi-successful in firing these "servants" and some judges insist that it's illegal.
        AnimalMuppet 7mo ago
        It's illegal because of the Civil Service Act, not because of the Constitution.
        pandaman 7mo ago
        [flagged]
        cosmicgadget 7mo ago
        The Civil Service Act has not been found unconstitutional so it is not in contention. Except in your mind.
  - donkeybeer 7mo ago
    Why didn't you comment on the other agencies mentioned? A simple yes or no would be enough.
    - pandaman 7mo ago
      [flagged]
      - donkeybeer 7mo ago
        How is it stupid? If I truly believed in such constitutional purity I would have no problems saying a simple yes or no to it. For example sometimes I am accused of hating a particular religion, I gladly say I am not a fan of any religion and name a few to make it clear. Again, its a simple question. Just answer yes or no. Do you or do you not believe in the dissolution of those agencies per your interpretation of the constitution?
        pandaman 7mo ago
        There are many things that are not in the Constitution: the USAF, computers, antibiotics, sea cruises, cars, steak, etc. Not being in the Constitution does not make them unconstitutional. Hope this helps. As for dissolution of those agencies, my answer is: no. You have to ask a question before demanding an answer.
        donkeybeer 7mo ago
        Why not? You literally said "We don't have either in the Constitution so whatever you call it, it has to be removed from power.". What's different about ICE and DHS but not about governments having civil services? Or the other things you listed?
        pandaman 7mo ago
        [flagged]
cosmicgadget 7mo ago
> Federal employees are unconstitutional Are you a law clerk for Clarence Thomas?

Calling it "civil service" instead of "deep state" does not make it any better. We don't have either in the Constitution so whatever you call it, it has to be removed from power.

AnimalMuppet 7mo ago

And then what? The spoils system? Rampant incompetence? And, we have to get rid of it because it's not in the Constitution? You know what else isn't in the Constitution? DHS. The IRS. ICE. An enormous number of other agencies. The Constitution gives very little guidance on the Executive Branch, other than the President and Vice President. That does not mean that hiring people in federal agencies is unconstitutional! It just means that the Constitution is silent on the topic, neither requiring nor prohibiting very much.

pandaman 7mo ago
Then back to the system defined in the Constitution, it gives enough guidance. If you think the President is not enough for the Executive - amend the Constitution, used to be enough for ~200 years though.
- AnimalMuppet 7mo ago
  The Constitution does not define a civil service system. You seem to interpret that as saying that any system is unconstitutional until the Constitution is amended to define one. That is... let's just call it "very much a minority interpretation". We are not going to either amend the Constitution nor abolish the civil service just because some pseudonymous online account says we should.
  - pandaman 7mo ago
    The Constitution defines just three branches of power, if the "civil service system" has a power and is not one of the branches then it unconstitutional by common sense and elementary logic. And this "civil servant system" evidentially has power and is not a part of either of the three branches (which are all enumerated in the Constitution) ergo it's an unconstitutional junta. >We are not going to either amend the Constitution nor abolish the civil service just because some pseudonymous online account says we should. Did not you participate in the mass crying out on this very site when DOGE had been firing the "civil servants"?
    - guelo 7mo ago
      The constitution says the president must "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". That means hiring people to enforce the laws, that's the civil servant system.
      - pandaman 7mo ago
        That means the whole Executive branch is the president and if he can delegate his power to some other people he also should be able to revoke the delegation and fire those people, which is not the case now. The president is semi-successful in firing these "servants" and some judges insist that it's illegal.
        AnimalMuppet 7mo ago
        It's illegal because of the Civil Service Act, not because of the Constitution.
        pandaman 7mo ago
        [flagged]
        cosmicgadget 7mo ago
        The Civil Service Act has not been found unconstitutional so it is not in contention. Except in your mind.
- donkeybeer 7mo ago
  Why didn't you comment on the other agencies mentioned? A simple yes or no would be enough.
  - pandaman 7mo ago
    [flagged]
    - donkeybeer 7mo ago
      How is it stupid? If I truly believed in such constitutional purity I would have no problems saying a simple yes or no to it. For example sometimes I am accused of hating a particular religion, I gladly say I am not a fan of any religion and name a few to make it clear. Again, its a simple question. Just answer yes or no. Do you or do you not believe in the dissolution of those agencies per your interpretation of the constitution?
      - pandaman 7mo ago
        There are many things that are not in the Constitution: the USAF, computers, antibiotics, sea cruises, cars, steak, etc. Not being in the Constitution does not make them unconstitutional. Hope this helps. As for dissolution of those agencies, my answer is: no. You have to ask a question before demanding an answer.
        donkeybeer 7mo ago
        Why not? You literally said "We don't have either in the Constitution so whatever you call it, it has to be removed from power.". What's different about ICE and DHS but not about governments having civil services? Or the other things you listed?
        pandaman 7mo ago
        [flagged]

cosmicgadget 7mo ago

> Federal employees are unconstitutional Are you a law clerk for Clarence Thomas?