Even with a highly sympathetic Supreme Court it is hard to imagine this EO standing.
It goes against the foundation of not only US law, but couple of hundred years of international democratic tradition in which allegiance is not to a person, but to the nation itself.
US civil servants and military alike swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution not the president or their commander. Illegal orders are not only expected, but required to be disobeyed.
This EO eliminates the concept of an illegal order since the law would be whatever the executive interprets it to be.
There used to be competing centers of power. But then they stacked the judiciary and used manipulative propaganda to turn the congress and senate into a rubber stamp. The only check on power was having the interest of those institutions not aligned with each other, for them to have power that they were able to exercise independently.
> It goes against the foundation of not only US law, but couple of hundred years of international democratic tradition in which allegiance is not to a person, but to the nation itself.
The United States had a spoils system of government administration until at least the late 1800s. The spoils system was still prevalent in many state and city governments until the mid 1900s.
This didn't mean officials were permitted to violate the law, but self-dealing and bald partisanship in administration was rampant, and of course violations of the law often went unpunished as administration officials had (and have) discretion to prosecute.
This EO eliminates the concept of an illegal order since the law would be whatever the executive interprets it to be.
How do you come to that to conclusion, especially in the context of the EO?
This EO doesn't change the Constitution's requirement that the President "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed".
I'm not a lawyer but I would interpret this EO to say "it is the job of the President to execute the laws passed by Congress" and "the President may employ subordinates in that execution", however "these subordinates must still execute based on the President's interpretation, not their own".
The EO has a long section on "independent agencies which operate without Presidential supervision". This is what the EO clarifies.
> This EO eliminates the concept of an illegal order since the law would be whatever the executive interprets it to be.
This isn't true at all. This EO doesn't change the fact that President is held accountable by the judicial branch for following the law.
> "these subordinates must still execute based on the President's interpretation, not their own".
Yes, this is a problem, because it would mean that if the President (for simplicity, the order also specified the AG, but it doesn't really change the issue) had an opinion on the law, and the courts issued an order to an executive officer such as a department head in a lawsuit contrary to that interpretation, the department head would remain bound by the Presidential interpretation until the President relented, since the meaning and effect of a court order is no less a matter of interpreting the law than the meaning and effect of a regulation, statute, or Constitutional provision.
Sec. 7 is so ridiculous on its face that, while I am sure the Administration seriously does want to impose as much of this control as it can get away with, I think it was largely included as a lightning rod to distract from the rest of the order moving control of all independent agencies internal spending allocations into OMB and the Executive Office of the President and otherwise purporting to transfer effective control of the functions assigned by law to the independent agencies to be exercised by their boards into the White House.
> the department head would remain bound by the Presidential interpretation until the President relented
I don't know what you mean by "bound"?
The President, EOs and the exective branch are not immune from court decisions.
If a court rules again an EO, the President would need to abide by that court decision. As per this EO, the department head would do what the President wanted (align to the court order), and would thus be in compliance with the court order.
In the case the President decides to ignore the court order, the department head has an option - do what the President says or do what the court says. If they decided to do what the President says they would also be in violation of the court order. If they did what the court said, they would likely be fired.
It's not like this EO really changes the situation? Before this EO a department head would have the same choices and face the same risk of being fired.
> Sec. 7 is so ridiculous on its face that, while I am sure the Administration seriously does want to impose as much of this control as it can get away with
I'm not sure what you mean? Why is it ridiculous that an agency which derives it's authority from the executive be able to ignore the head of the executive's interpretation of the law? Who would they be accountable to if not the US President? Nobody?
There are no "independent agencies" under the US Constitution. All agencies exist under the purview of the President. What Section 7 says is "no executive agency employee may make an independent interpretation of a law outside that determined by the head of the executive".
This is entirely aligned with prior US Supreme Court decisions that the US President has sole authority over the Executive Branch.
I'm not sure we'd want to have an unelected executive agencies that is unaccountable to head of the executive branch. That just wouldn't even make sense.
The constitutional argument is ridiculous; we've really been frog boiled into a wildly different understanding of executive power than even the most monarchical Founders imagined. Article II sections 2 and 3 are short and grant almost no powers. Practically all executive power outside stuff like appointments and pardons derives from this clause: "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". Nearly all governmental power resides in Congress, on purpose, as it's the most democratically responsive yet least efficient of the branches. For example, a lot of people probably think either Commerce or Treasury mint coins. Nope, constitution says that's Congress. People think State, or maybe Commerce negotiates trade treaties; nope Congress again. Post Office? Congress.
What this means is that the President executes Congress' will. Reading the Constitution, there's just no argument for anything else. You have to dig into subsequent history, acts of Congress, and Supreme Court decisions to reach the justifications for the wild increase of presidential power. I'm not saying this is bad per se, just that the Constitution argument is absolutely bankrupt and ahistorical: there was zero appetite for a powerful executive in the Continental Congress.
That's what's so radical about this EO: it's antithetical to the very founding of the US where we rebelled against a king and ultimately adopted a constitution with a very weak executive. It supplants the will of Congress with the will of the executive, undermining the separation of powers, plenary powers, and the very underpinnings of our government.
> It's not like this EO really changes the situation? Before this EO a department head would have the same choices and face the same risk of being fired.
No, this is completely false. The President doesn't have the authority to fire a department head for following a court order, and if they tried they would get sued and clearly lose, and be forced to reinstate the fired person, and other employees would follow this pattern.
With this EO, the President does get this exact authority, and the courts would be forced to side with the president in the matter of the firing, if the EO is allowed to stand by the SC.
> Who would they be accountable to if not the US President?
Accountability does not require absolute control. A subordinate official can be permitted (even mandated) to exercise independent judgement and still be accountable for mis-, mal-, and nonfeasance to a higher authority.
And this has, with different precise parameters, long been the statutory model governing the President’s relations with much of the executive branch, with different specific rules applicable to civil service employees generally, Inspectors-General and a few other specially-designated employees in regular departments, and independent agencies.
> I'm not sure we'd want to have an unelected executive agencies that is unaccountable to head of the executive branch. That just wouldn't even make sense.
Independent agencies, that execute their mission rather than the whims of one man (and are accountable to the law) don't make sense to you?
What I'm talking about is accountability for interpretation of the law.
Let's say the head of an agency decides their interpretation of the law is X, but the President thinks it's Y. You can't bring them to court because X and Y fall within the interpretation of law.
If agencies were not accountable to the President, you basically have an unelected/unaccountable (when it comes to policy within interpretation of the law) bureaucrat that the voters are unable to hold accountable.
With this EO, the voters can elect a President who can then direct the agency head to execute interpretation Y.
The president names the agency heads, and their mandates expire roughly or exactly at the same time as the president's. That's more than enough control. The president can't and shouldn't then go and get into the weeds of specific policies that those agency heads then coordinate.
Also, settling the ultimate interpretation of the law is indeed the prerogative of the courts. This has actually changed quite recently in some ways - the SC has recently struck down the Chevron Doctrine, which held that the courts would defer to the executive when a law could be interpreted in different ways. So right now if Congress passes a law that says "the EPA shall insure that American citizens have potable drinking water", it is ultimately up to the courts to decide if the level of lead in water set by the EPA makes the water potable or not.
But however you slice it, the president shouldn't be the one to decide if the level of lead in water being enforced by the EPA is too little or too much. If the head of the EPA and the courts believe that a certain level is good enough, than that's that. After all, the president chose this head of the EPA. The next president can choose another head.
It's to be seen how "interpretation" is interpreted, if the president can declare it doesn't mean what it clearly does.
If a law is too much subject to interpretation, anyhow, the congress, which is the branch deputed at making the law, can change it at any time.
And most of all, I'm not sure in the US case, but when there are interpretation disputes you typically can have courts declare what's the correct interpretation.
> Let's say the head of an agency decides their interpretation of the law is X, but the President thinks it's Y. You can't bring them to court because X and Y fall within the interpretation of law.
Uh, who is “you” in this scenario? Because for most reasonable values, yes, you can.
Differing interpretations of the law by different executive branch officers have never stopped outside parties from suing those executive officers over their execution of the law, with the courts ultimately deciding the correct interpretation (sometimes with some degree of deference, but never absolute, to executive interpretations.)
Again, they're accountable to the laws that regulate them and the judicial system, in their every action.
It's something extremely common in normal democracies, and if it's really antithetical to US civics, that's just another proof that the US were only a pretence of a democratic system.
Also, they're run by people appointed by elected officials, just like any other government agency. They serve according to laws passed by the people's representatives and signed by the president, and they can be removed from their positions according to the law, as well. The theory that all executive authority must stem from the president's will and be subject to his whim is novel, monarchical, and highly dangerous.
No because "independent agency" just mean the agency was established by law, with a specific mandate and regulations that the President can't independently change.
It doesn't mean the agency isn't a part of the Executive branch with the President at it's head and it doesn't mean the President can't fire them for specific reasons.
> The President, EOs and the exective branch are not immune from court decisions.
Sure they are, if they want to be. Federal courts don't have their own enforcement arm. Even if they find specific officials in contempt of court, and order them arrested, Trump can simply order the US Marshals service to just... not arrest them.
Under this EO he could even choose to “interpret the law” such that it was illegal for the Marshal’s service to arrest executive branch officials without explicit Presidential permission (and this flows naturally from the same version of unitary executive theory as this EOs rule on legal interpration itself relies on), and it would not only be a violation of this order for them to carry out the arrest, but it would be a violation of the order for anyone in the executive branch to disagree that that was the law.
> Trump can simply order the US Marshals service to just... not arrest them.
Yes. Or even more perniciously, just note the arrests have been put on the long “to do list”, to be studied fully, and carried out with special care, all of which takes time…
Because of course the arrest order is being taken seriously and the courts decisions respected.
> Yes, this is a problem, because it would mean that if the President (for simplicity, the order also specified the AG, but it doesn't really change the issue) had an opinion on the law, and the courts issued an order to an executive officer such as a department head in a lawsuit contrary to that interpretation, the department head would remain bound by the Presidential interpretation until the President relented, since the meaning and effect of a court order is no less a matter of interpreting the law than the meaning and effect of a regulation, statute, or Constitutional provision.
I don't think that's true? Court orders are orders, not laws, and the two are very different.
This executive order doesn't change anything about that as far as I can see. If the president says the law means one thing, other executive agencies have to follow that interpretation - but the courts will still do their own thing, and a court order is just as binding whether you agree with it or not (and indeed whether it's legally correct or not).
Before this EO the executive branch policy on court orders was "always listen to them." This EO changes that to "ignore court orders if they conflict with what the president wants"
How? Court orders aren't a matter of interpretation of the law. Agencies might follow interpretations of the law that blatantly conflict with court orders when considering matters not directly covered by those court orders, but they've already been doing that for decades, the EO doesn't change anything about that.
The question of which federal laws to enforce is indeed controlled by the president. That's already normal and has been used by many presidents to de facto change the law (e.g. weed non-enforcement, various immigration amnesties). But that's got nothing to do with court orders.
> The executive shall enforce orders, because it is bound by laws to do so
No? They don't do their job because the law compels them to do (often it doesn't, e.g. the police don't have any positive legal obligation to make arrests or what have you). They do their job because it's their job.
> This EO doesn't change the fact that President is held accountable by the judicial branch for following the law.
Didn't the judicial branch say that presidents have broad(or near total) immunity for their official acts? Then how is the judiciary going to hold the president accountable when they choose to interpret the law based on personal whim?
With this EO, every federal worker has to adhere to that whim or face dismissal at best or prosecution at worst.
> This EO doesn't change the fact that President is held accountable by the judicial branch for following the law.
That's the big question, though, isn't it? Will current SCOTUS actually pass down rulings based on the law and constitutionality, or will they defer to Trump on many/most/all things?
And if they pass down a ruling that Trump doesn't like, will he obey the court? Or will he just instruct his people to ignore it? Federal courts and SCOTUS don't really have much or anything in the way of enforcement power, if the executive branch wants to ignore them.
The only real backstop to this is Congress' power to impeach. Which won't happen. And even if it did, would Trump actually leave office? And if he didn't, who would have the ability and willingness to step in and force him to leave?
If the answer to all this is "the military", whoooo boy, are we in trouble. And even that assumes all the military leadership hasn't been retired by then, with Trump loyalists installed in their place.
The nuance here, based on the EO, is rank file and employees of these agencies must now rely on the sole interpretation of the law by either the president or the AG instead of themselves. These _were_ independent agencies who handled their own interpretation of the law.
If you combine this EO with the Supreme Court immunity decision, there may very well be a situation where a rank and file employee acts illegally based on the president's interpretation of the law. This would create a situation where there is a legal challenge about whether a member of the executive branch should be granted the same immunity privileges as the president since they are an extension of the president. You can imagine where things will head if we end up on the wrong side of this decision.
> rank file and employees of these agencies must now rely on the sole interpretation of the law by either the president or the AG instead of themselves. These _were_ independent agencies who handled their own interpretation of the law
At first glance, it seems like it's a positive thing for all members of the executive branch adhere to the same interpretation of the law. It's the definition of "arbitrary and capricious" if one executive agency interprets the same law differently than another. As others have commented, the president or AG's interpretation is still open to judicial review.
Judicial review won't automatically change the president's mind. And according to this order, executive branch employees must only look at the president's decisions, not at what other branches of government say. Even if a judge issues an injunction against some decision by the president, federal employees acting on that judicial order will be fired for not performing their duty to the president.
The fact that the President was granted that immunity in the first place by a so-called "conservative" Supreme Court should make it abundantly clear that the "conservative" movement fully intends to take it as far in the wrong direction as they feel they need to. The goal? to secure absolute power and therefore a future in which the ultra-wealthy rule America with an iron fist, and dissent can be crushed easily. The techniques are all fascist, but the film Metropolis is the end game, not another Holocaust -- but if a good old genocide helps rally the voter base, then so be it.
Seems like an enormous organizational challenge to even get through the queue of other US gov agency attorneys wanting to know the presidents opinion on just how many ppm of this particulate is allowed per the statute. Such that the new status quo will be no enforcement at all. And maybe that's just fine w this administration.
> It goes against the foundation of not only US law, but couple of hundred years of international democratic tradition in which allegiance is not to a person, but to the nation itself.
Yes. It does.
But there is an older Big Man tradition where loyalty to the nation is indistinguishable from loyalty to the person, the Big Man).
I naively thought that that was a stage that democracies passed through (we see it a lot in the South Pacific - the Big Man.
So sad. So terribly sad. We all like to tease Americans for being this and that, but now it feels like punching down.
fellow Blindboy listener, and/or is "dog bless" common elsewhere, too?
And yeah, it's about time we (I'm from the USA) got off our high horse and accepted we're a collection of humans with cultures, traditions, languages, habits, and messy traumatic history like everywhere else.
It’s pretty amazing. A few days ago someone posted a comparison of the oath of allegiance for officers before and after Hitler, and it has basically exactly the same change.
I know this sounds corny, but people are the recourse. We are part of the checks and balances.
Whether it is as overt as a soldier refusing to follow an illegal order knowing they are risking court marshal, or as clandestine as mid-level bureaucrat slow-walking damaging policies, or people actually voting in local-to-national elections.
I completely agree, which is why I’m very pessimistic about the outlook. I have no faith that the American public is up to the task. It will demand too much discomfort, and sacrifice, while the alternative will ask only that they do nothing.
Only recently has it become placid in the US. I expect social media also removes the desires to actually march or do something even louder. If Biden was this busy we'd be hearing a lot more "2nd Amendment!" talk.
> I know this sounds corny, but people are the recourse. We are part of the checks and balances.
By "we" here, it seems you mean bureaucrats. But what if your opinions, as an individual, unelected bureaucrat are bad? I don't care what a mid-level bureaucrat's opinions on what policies are damaging is. He could be a neo-nazi for all I know. Constitutionally, we should go with the opinions of the people who won an election, instead of some random dude. I was taught that was what "democracy" was, not some random person taking advantage of their position to advance their personal goals.
When the guy paid to guard the door starts making his own decisions about who should get to come in, it's not good. It's corruption.
> But what if your opinions, as an individual, unelected bureaucrat are bad?
That’s a slightly silly stance to take. Modern developed countries live and die by the quality of their bureaucracy. Making every bureaucratic role an elected position would be insane.
How on earth would you organise elections for every single DMV employee? Or every single park ranger? Or every single government accountant or secretary? Every single civil servant involved in collecting the data used to drive policy decisions.
To get rid of “unelected bureaucrats” you would basically have to turn every federal role into an elected role. The federal government employees around 3 million people, even if we say that only 10% of them are “real unelected bureaucrats”, that’s still 300,000 elections you would need to hold every X number of years. How on earth would anyone ever manage any of that?
Thats before we get to the insanity which is Musk, the epitome of the “unelected bureaucrat” who seems to be the one leading the charge on many of these “policy decisions”, and publicly lambasting “unelected bureaucrats” as being corrupt and “undemocratic”.
> How on earth would you organise elections for every single DMV employee? Or every single park ranger? Or every single government accountant or secretary? Every single civil servant involved in collecting the data used to drive policy decisions.
You can't. Which is exactly why the civil service is supposed to impartially implement the policies of the elected government rather than making their own judgements.
IMO the increasing partiality of these bureaucrats (who are drawn from the professional-managerial class and have the views of that class, which are increasingly out of step with those of the average citizen, especially on social issues) was one of the big contributors to Trump getting elected.
The policies of the elected government in the United States are decided by the legislative branch, as bills that are passed into law. By ignoring U.S. code, bureaucrats would be violating the U.S. Constitution.
"The Congress shall have Power ...
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof"
- Article 1, §8, United States Constitution.
> "The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof" - Article 1, §8, United States Constitution.
Don't stop there, carry on and read Article 2: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". Nothing in there about anyone else taking the faithful execution of the laws upon themselves.
Bit weird to make a fuss about the constitution just to say the law is the law, you make it sound like breaking the ordinary law is unconstitutional.
But yes, everyone has an obligation to follow the law, which is what exactly this EO is about. Federal agencies don't get to pick and choose their own creative interpretations of the law, they have to follow the actual law. The president literally has a constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, and this EO is him doing that.
The EO contradicts the Constitution by declaring that agencies must refer to the President and the Attorney General for all interpretations of the law. This is a novel proposal not rooted in the historical functioning of the federal government.
The government agencies' powers come from the legislature and must follow U.S. Code, derived from the legislature's laws. Agencies hire their own counsel to make guidelines and regulations from U.S. Code.
As a technologist, you have the confidence to interpret the law and the Constitution from your version of reasoning from first principles. However, the Supreme Court and other courts repeatedly disagree with your interpretation, which willfully ignores the first article in favor of the second.
> The EO contradicts the Constitution by declaring that agencies must refer to the President and the Attorney General for all interpretations of the law.
It doesn't say that. It says that agencies must follow interpretations published by the President and the Attorney General and may not publish contradictory interpretations. And even if it did say that, how would that contradict the constitution - which says nothing about who is supposed to interpret the law and charges the President, and only the president, with ensuring the laws are faithfully executed?
It does not say "only the President" in article 2. Omission has never been a basis to grant powers to an arm of the government in constitutional law.
Again, as a technologist it is enticing to attempt to read the Constitution and interpret law from first principles. However, if you want to do that, you must also consider relevant inputs. The common law system of the U.S. means that `HEAD` of the current law is actually determined by commits made by the court system. Several cases in federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have established the hierarchy for law interpretation for federal agencies.
If your belief system leads you to disregard these decisions or to find they're not valid, that's fine, but you are instead arguing about some theoretical "lmm states of america" instead of the actual United States that we live in.
> The common law system of the U.S. means that `HEAD` of the current law is actually determined by commits made by the court system.
Not entirely. The supreme court can and does reverse itself. Ultimately the only way to find out what is legal in that realist sense today is to do it, see if you get sued, and see who wins the court case.
There's a big difference between something that goes against a past court precedent, something that goes against a statute, and something that goes against the constitution, and you're wilfully conflating them all so that you can call following the plain text of the constitution in a way that today's court system is likely to support (whether or not a court a few decades ago would have read things differently) "unconstitutional".
Ever tried getting the bureaucracy to acknowledge your rights in practice and do the things they're charged with doing when they've decided you're on the "wrong" side? Yes, I believe "my team" is winning; I haven't lost rights (yet), I've gained them. I worry about the pendulum swinging too far, I wish it hadn't come to this, but there's a whole class of people that have been shamelessly partisan for years, and even now are unrepentant and contemptuous of the people they're supposed to be serving, and that system has shown itself to be unwilling to be reformed. I had hoped that the first Trump presidency would be a wake-up call, that the Dems would finally remember they need to at least pretend to care about the working class, but instead we got more of the same. So here we are.
Wait, are you claiming that an administration currently being advised if not outright directed by the wealthiest man in the world is going to guarantee justice for the working class? Do you realize how that sounds?
Do you think massively cutting government grants that go to all kinds of social services in order to pay for 4.5T in tax cuts that mainly go to the wealthy, is going to help the working class?
Moreover, inter-term government workers are hired to be explicitly non-partisan. You want them to be non-partisan in order to guarantee continuity of government between administrations and to enforce the law as determined by the courts, non-politically. This is what actually guarantees your rights under the constitution. The minute you introduce political bias into this process is when you begin to deviate from the rule of law and actually abridge peoples’ rights.
And I’m sorry, but your “team” is going to have to face a reckoning if they continue to take power unconstitutionally. That abridges my rights as a citizen of the republic and forfeits their mandate to rule. We will all have the moral right and duty to use force if necessary against any politician who upholds this illiberal order. I hope you like violence, because that’s what you’re asking for.
> Wait, are you claiming that an administration currently being advised if not outright directed by the wealthiest man in the world is going to guarantee justice for the working class? Do you realize how that sounds?
Wealth is not the same as class.
> Do you think massively cutting government grants that go to all kinds of social services in order to pay for 4.5T in tax cuts that mainly go to the wealthy, is going to help the working class?
Yes. I'd've preferred raising the minimum wage or actual proper public-funded healthcare, but apparently there's no party you can vote for that will make a serious effort to do those. Cutting a bunch of PMC email jobs will at least reduce competition for housing, and while there are some well-intentioned individuals at the low levels of those agencies, overall they're often useless or even counterproductive.
> inter-term government workers are hired to be explicitly non-partisan. You want them to be non-partisan in order to guarantee continuity of government between administrations and to enforce the law as determined by the courts, non-politically. This is what actually guarantees your rights under the constitution. The minute you introduce political bias into this process is when you begin to deviate from the rule of law and actually abridge peoples’ rights.
Right, and this is where your "team" has been gradually going astray for decades, and what has lead us to this point.
> And I’m sorry, but your “team” is going to have to face a reckoning if they continue to take power unconstitutionally. That abridges my rights as a citizen of the republic and forfeits their mandate to rule. We will all have the moral right and duty to use force if necessary against any politician who upholds this illiberal order. I hope you like violence, because that’s what you’re asking for.
Lol. Your "team" is all about non-partisanship and rule of law as long as things are going your way, and then the moment the people elect someone who actually tries to implement the policies he stood on, it's time to declare him illegitimate and threaten violence. I fully believe you have the temerity, but you don't have the balls.
See, what’s nice about the rule of law is that if a bureaucrat actually infringes on your rights then you can sue the government to correct it. Under this new arrangement, that’s no longer possible because the executive branch has declared itself solely responsible for interpreting the law and constitution — not Congress and not the Supreme Court. So if you were worried about your rights being infringed by bureaucrats before, then you’re fucked.
And no, I’m sorry, but grossly violating the constitutional foundation of this country going back to 1880 is not a matter of just “implementing policies”. We can do all that through acts of Congress already. Don’t like it? Then don’t vote for a party that’s made it their mission to obstruct all legislative progress.
What you’re trying justify here is the elimination of the balance of powers itself—the very thing that keeps this country free. If your family has multiple generations in this country then you are disgracing their legacy as Americans. One of us is an actual patriot willing to take a risk and defend both of us against tyranny (and you should be grateful that there are millions more with that intention). The other just traded away his own liberty to a wannabe tyrant, like a coward. So step out of the way.
> See, what’s nice about the rule of law is that if a bureaucrat actually infringes on your rights then you can sue the government to correct it. Under this new arrangement, that’s no longer possible because the executive branch has declared itself solely responsible for interpreting the law and constitution — not Congress and not the Supreme Court. So if you were worried about your rights being infringed by bureaucrats before, then you’re fucked.
No, this changes nothing about the relationship between the branches. The judicial and legislative branches still have exactly the same roles and responsibilities they've always had. Individuals can still sue and Congress can still impeach. There was never supposed to be a secret fourth branch of bureaucrats accountable to no-one; bureaucrats in the executive were always supposed to be accountable within the executive, topping out at the President. And now they are.
> If your family has multiple generations in this country then you are disgracing their legacy as Americans.
Right back at you. How many generations of your ancestors do you think would say that random staffers in NOAA or MBDA or BLS or BoIE or MSHA should be deciding they know better than the President and the Attorney General and making up their own interpretations of the law to follow instead?
> One of us is an actual patriot willing to take a risk and defend both of us against tyranny (and you should be grateful that there are millions more like me).
>No, this changes nothing about the relationship between the branches. The judicial and legislative branches still have exactly the same roles and responsibilities they've always had.
That's blatantly false. You need to educate yourself on how our constitutional order actually works and how this EO attempts to claim illegitimate power.
>deciding they know better than the President and the Attorney General and making up their own interpretations of the law to follow instead?
Also false. The courts interpret the law and dictate what is legal to the bureaucrats. Under that executive order, the president -- rather than the courts -- interprets the law, which clearly violates separation of powers. You have thrice ignored this most basic fact.
If you're being truthful, then you are grossly misinformed. If you are not, then you're opposed to a free America. Either way this needs to be explained to anyone else reading this thread.
>Real internet tough guy huh.
Yep, it's all a big joke until you find yourself sitting in federal prison because you said something the president didn't like. That's where ignoring the courts will take us.
Your own link doesn't back up your claims. There is no sound constitutional or even legal basis for the concept of an independent regulatory agency, and to the extent that they exist they do exactly the thing you claim to be concerned about - combining legislative and executive power in the same entity, with all the accountability problems that implies. (The likes of the SEC even ran their own courts and judges as well, although the supreme court has thankfully put a stop to most of that now). Making it clear that executive agencies are part of the executive and accountable to the executive is a positive step.
The judicial branch doesn't interpret the law prospectively, it rules on cases and controversies. This EO doesn't affect court rulings, it's about interpretation as done by (from your own link) "agency lawyers, inspectors general, and independent counsel". It puts those people in the executive hierarchy and makes them accountable to someone.
>It puts those people in the executive hierarchy and makes them accountable to someone.
Again, that executive hierarchy has always been accountable to the courts.
Think about the difference between consulting independent agency lawyers vs the attorney general before taking action. What does that look like in practice? The attorney general and/or office of the president can now unilaterally decide that something grossly unconstitutional (e.g., eliminating birthright citizenship) is actually "legal" and instruct all federal employees to enact it on that basis. We then have to wait for courts to intervene, possibly for it to reach the supreme court, which could take a long time. In that time, the entire apparatus of the federal government would be engaged in gross violations of its citizens rights. Whereas before, the interpretation of the law would have been distributed across all the agencies, making it much harder to turn them toward nefarious ends.
Now let's go one step farther. Trump has already appointed cronies loyal to him to the federal agencies, so they won't go against him under any circumstance. As more of the federal workforce is replaced with loyal cronies (and that's indeed part of Project 2025), fewer and fewer barriers will stand in the way of complete dictatorship. Attacking the power of independent agencies is the first concrete step to making that happen.
> The attorney general and/or office of the president can now unilaterally decide that something grossly unconstitutional (e.g., eliminating birthright citizenship) is actually "legal" and instruct all federal employees to enact it on that basis. We then have to wait for courts to intervene, possibly for it to reach the supreme court, which could take a long time.
If the president ordered something actually grossly unconstitutional (and reversing Wong Kim Ark, a decision that the Supreme Court itself was split on, is hardly a good example of that), it would be the senate's duty to impeach.
The legal system is indeed overly slow to come down on federal agencies that do the wrong thing. If your side is onboard with improving that, that's all to the good.
> Whereas before, the interpretation of the law would have been distributed across all the agencies, making it much harder to turn them toward nefarious ends.
Unaccountability cuts both ways. Yes, if each agency is doing its own interpretation of the law, that makes it harder for elected officials to control what those agencies do. I don't see that as a good thing.
>Yes, if each agency is doing its own interpretation of the law, that makes it harder for elected officials to control what those agencies do. I don't see that as a good thing.
Do you trust Congress to write clear and unequivocal laws? If so, there should be no issue in interpreting them. When there have been issues, the courts come in. This has always been a perfectly reasonable way to run the federal government. Even if you think they could be better aligned with the popular will, risking an all-out dictatorship is not the way to accomplish that.
I don't think that's entirely true. We used to have much more social mobility back when it was legal to e.g. build your own house. These kind of government jobs didn't always require a degree (and getting a degree didn't always require generational wealth). And there was a dramatic increase in class polarisation on social issues post-Occupy Wall Street.
Individuals with appointment power attach appointees to their ticket like vice presidents. You get the option to write in anyone, but the tickets are defaults.
How does that solve the “unelected bureaucrat” problem? You still need bureaucrats to run a civil service, the appointed positions in U.S. institutions are mostly just figureheads, they’re not handling the day-to-day work of keeping a bureaucracy functioning.
Unless you’re suggesting that every bureaucrat role should be an appointment, and part of X years elections, is having people with appointment powers turning up with a list of 300,000-3,000,000 people to fill every bureaucratic role, and somehow the general public are going to scrutinise that in some meaningful manner.
All of that is of course ignoring the problem that comes with throwing away all of your bureaucracies institutional knowledge every X number of years. Do you really want the issuance of driving licences, fishing licenses, gun licenses, international visas, customs enforcement, immigration enforcement, to all grind to a holt every 3-5 years while the new folks figure out how stuff works? You would basically end up with a bureaucracy that fundamentally couldn’t achieve anything, and silly things like the rule-of-law would simply cease to exist in the U.S.
Why would anyone want to trade with, invest in, or ally with, a country that effectively lobotomises its government every few years, and has zero continuity of governance at even the most basic day-to-day items of modern life?
I read that as an all-inclusive "we" and not so narrow as "bureaucrats". The examples given are not exhaustive, if you have an imsgination.
There are many ways to fight for what you believe in. Look up mutual aid, participatory democracy, and the histories of women's suffrage and the fight in the USA for equal rights for Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color (that fight is nowhere near over).
Start with loving yourself, extent that to others, and if you feel like you're teetering, lean on others and find your balance again.
If I'm the guy guarding the door (and I have been), I damn well make my own decisions to the best of my ability, to where I would be willing to explain the what and why of my actions.
Which unelected bureaucrats do you consider to have the power and leeway to make policy according to their personal goals, such that making them follow the President rather than the courts' interpretation of the law is the better option?
… oh boy, if you think that mid level bureaucrat might be a neo-nazi I might have some bad news for you about the highest level bureaucrats currently running your country..
You’re right. But if the guy paid to guard the door is told to start letting gangsters in by management, whistleblowing and civil disobedience become championed by the public rather than condemned, that’s “the people’s” check and balance to power. I don’t think we should legally protect the guard’s right to disobey orders, but we MUST protect the guard’s right to protest publicly.
Ask yourself: what's the difference between the SEC saying, "We declare that Facebook broke a securities law and shall now be fined $1M" and Trump saying, "I decree that the SEC declare that Facebook broke a securities law and shall now be fined $1M"? Either of those could be true or false. Either could be politically motivated. Either could hold up in court or be struck down. So what's the difference?
One[0] answer is, the former was vetted by someone knowledgeable and (at least allegedly) non-partisan who had the power to stop it if it was wrong. That's it. If the president really wants to fine Facebook he can - he can replace the SEC Director with the "My Pillow" guy if he wants, who can replace SEC employees with randomly chosen members MAGA types until the desired fine is eventually issued - but at least going through the bureaucracy confers the possibility of impartial and informed oversight. Vesting the power with the president directly doesn't do that; presidents are biased and partisan by design.
0: Another answer is the SEC has been granted the power to do that by Congress and the president has not; but I get that people on the "unitary executive" train disregard this, and
A majority of Americans voted for Trump. There was a pollster who was on CNN a day or two ago who looked into people who voted for Clinton and Biden in 2016 and 2020, but then for Trump in 2024. These people were (of course generally speaking) happy with Trump's performace so far this term. There frustration with the Democrats was what they perceived as a lack of action, and they see Trump as "moving fast".
It's clear the American people (again, majority speaking - I mean, I certainly care) don't care about what is going on with the federal government right now. The only thing that will make them care is if the economy tanks or if inflation spirals out of control.
Congress has all the enforcement power, they can impeach the president whenever they want. Will they? I don't know, he's already gone so far in constitutional overreach that he's making Nixon blush.
Judiciary has more power than you'd think too. It's just that they try to act in good faith and generally do not want to throw people into civil contempt that often. The SCOTUS can even re-re-interpret the presidential immunity that Trump has abused to a pulp if they are angry enough. That was their call after all.
Will they do this? Highly unlikely, at least for Trump. I wouldn't be surprised if Musk flies too close to the sun, however.
> Congress has all the enforcement power, they can impeach the president whenever they want.
<Sad clown laughing noises>
Regarding the power of the judiciary in this, Trump's team is arguing right now before the Supreme Court that the judiciary has no power to constrain the President's power when he's acting solely within the Executive branch (which is basically all the time...) Oh, and as part of that filing he reminded the Supreme Court that they just granted him full immunity from prosecution.
For the cherry on the cake, the official Whitehouse X account tweeted out "GOD SAVE THE KING" with a picture of Trump with a crown on his head (I thought this was fake when I first saw it).
Okay, that's not even the craziest argument the judiciary has gotten. They'll just smash it down like everything else. If he ignores that, the court can escalate. Which is unprecedented for such office, but well in their powers. They can easily reinterpret presidential immunity as well in light of this entire month so that isn't really his protection.
Live it? There are plenty of people who live under dictatorships. I wasn't planning on being one of them, but perhaps this is what it was like in the Roman Republic at the transition to dictatorship.
>There are plenty of people who live under dictatorships.
Interesting decision. Unfortunately I am a minority and I don't like my survival nor QoL odds. Not even in California. so I am slowly looking into figuring out what EU country would mesh best with me should the worst happen. I don't think Canada will be far enough and I don't think their immigration sentiments will calm down in the next few years.
Heck, maybe I learn enough Japanese in the next few years and put up with more discrimination in Japan if I'm let in. Fits better with my career overall if I can get hired there.
What gives you any confidence that the SC will not like that argument? The Presidential immunity decision was already crazy cookoo land, they've already shown they're lackeys of Trump first and judges only second.
I explained it above, not quite sure how I can add more context. I can add that the court stacking isn't too unanimous and that it just takes 2 judges being pissed off to shift the entire dynamic. Compared to something like 19 GOP senators.
But yes, we're in unprecedented times and maybe SCOTUS will lock step over it. It's sad that I can't say with confidence that judges will respect the first article of the constitution.
>The Presidential immunity decision was already crazy cookoo land
It has a semblance of sense in a good faith governmental system. You don't want a president punished for their hard decisions in office.
Now with context: it's stupid because so many of his actions happened before he was president. At the very best, he maybe would have been excused for the Jan 6th riots. Trump should indeed be in jail, even before dissecting this month of of a circus.
> It has a semblance of sense in a good faith governmental system. You don't want a president punished for their hard decisions in office.
I completely disagree, this is a very ahistorical take. The reality is that not a single US president has ever faced a single legal consequence for a decision they took while in office, for over two hundred years.
But, the possibility has always existed, as a check on the powers of the president. Parts of the decision making process for any president have always been "is there a chance this might put me in jail later?". The Supreme Court decided that's done. They have explicitly acquiesced that the president may order Seal Team 6 to assassinate the opposition leader, and the courts would have no right to condemn them for that (if the president pulled out a gun and shot the opposition leader themselves, there might be a trial, since it could be argued this wasn't an official act as presidnet, it was a personal act of the person holding the office; but that would still have to be settled in court before any kind of evidence or injunction against the president would be allowed on the shooting charge).
Judiciary is easy. They don't want to take drastic actions unless absolutely pushed. The entire idea is to be meticulous and try to avoid the political climate when making judgement. They are taking action but they havent taken their gloves off yet.
Congressional's reasons: your guess is as good as mine. Their majorities aren't that wide. moving 3 senators can affect policy, moving half the senators can get an impeachment trial. We'll see how things proceed there.
> If the Supreme Court and Congress has no enforcement power, though, what recourse is there?
While maybe not practical for the president, but at least for various cabinet Secretaries or Directors: if they do not follow court-issued orders could be found in contempt and jailed until the corrective orders are implemented?
Trump's new doctrine is that all employees of the executive branch, such as federal police, must take his interpretation of the law as correct. So if a court ordered that the Secretary of State be jailed, Trump can issue a memo saying "the Executive Branch interprets this legal decision as meaning that the Secretary of State should not be jailed", then any federal police officer or agency head has to comply with the official interpretation of the president or be fired.
We should not have have top down dictates on what cases get prosecuted, that is insane. The President can give areas of focus, but average government employees are not military personnel, they should not be given 'marching orders'. Special envoys, etc, sure, but telling individual prosecutors 'drop charges against XYZ' isn't how our system should work. 'I would appreciate it if...' yes, but not 'Bob's our guy, drop the charges against him'.
It goes against the foundation of not only US law, but couple of hundred years of international democratic tradition in which allegiance is not to a person, but to the nation itself.
US civil servants and military alike swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution not the president or their commander. Illegal orders are not only expected, but required to be disobeyed.
This EO eliminates the concept of an illegal order since the law would be whatever the executive interprets it to be.