Trump and Allies Forge Plans to Increase Presidential Power in 2025

[Hans Blaster]

No accurate at all - the Supreme Court is a co equal branch of Government - The FTC is no
The Supreme Court appointments are life time - the FTC is not

Can the President currently fire FTC commisioners? Can he fire judges or justices? Sounds pretty similar to me.

and so many other reasons the argument fails in my POV

The FTC does not "work" for the President, unlike the cabinet which does, and like the federal judiciary which doesn't.
While the President both both selects and dismisses cabinet officers, he only selects members of the FTC and of the federal bench.

A compliant Congress could pass a law changing that fact about the FTC by making the commissioners subject to dismissal or transferring the power to the Commerce Department. The one difference for the Federal judiciary is that the life tenure of judges is protected by the Constitution and that takes more than Congress to change.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Sounds like they are under Presidential authority to me.

OK, then, so what is Trump complaining about?

 

[Arcangl86]

Sounds like they are under Presidential authority to me.

I suspect what he was getting at is that these commissioners can only be fired for cause, not simple policy disagreements.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I suspect what he was getting at is that these commissioners can only be fired for cause, not simple policy disagreements.

I would also add that with one commission having 7 year terms, a one-term president would always have holdovers nominated by a predecessor

(let alone the requirement of bipartisan makeup in the commission)

But hey, those are the requirements Congress (in its wisdom) wrote into these laws at the outset to prevent these bodies from being the president's personal political tools.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Can the President currently fire FTC commisioners? Can he fire judges or justices? Sounds pretty similar to me.

If you are appointed by the President - you work at the pleasure of the President - what makes you think the one who appoints you cannot remove you?

OK, then, so what is Trump complaining about?

I did not read a complaint, but a vision and goals

I suspect what he was getting at is that these commissioners can only be fired for cause, not simple policy disagreements.

Possibly

 

[essentialsaltes]

If you are appointed by the President - you work at the pleasure of the President - what makes you think the one who appoints you cannot remove you?

The text of the law.

"Any commissioner may be removed by the President for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office."

I did not read a complaint, but a vision and goals

What is his goal or vision for the FTC/FCC commissions? Will he make them elected offices?

 

[Pommer]

I didn't say he was incorrect about that fact. I said he was disingenuous. Unless his proposal is for the president to give up the power to appoint commissioners, and make them elected offices. But that doesn't seem to be what he's saying, since he wants them to be 'back' under presidential authority.

The tv ads for “elect Pommer for chairman of the FCC!” would have been glorious.

 

[Hans Blaster]

If you are appointed by the President - you work at the pleasure of the President - what makes you think the one who appoints you cannot remove you?

So apparently the President can remove a commissioner, but it is still not employment "at the pleasure" of the President:

15 USC 41: " Any Commissioner may be removed by the President for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office."

"They won't do my bidding." is not covered.

 

[Always in His Presence]

So apparently the President can remove a commissioner, but it is still not employment "at the pleasure" of the President:

15 USC 41: " Any Commissioner may be removed by the President for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office."

"They won't do my bidding." is not covered.

Who said it was?

What is his goal or vision for the FTC/FCC commissions? Will he make them elected offices?

Read the links. His own words are the best to judge what he is saying.

 

[FreeinChrist]

I think this is of great concern:

​

"He intends to strip employment protections from tens of thousands of career civil servants, making it easier to replace them if they are deemed obstacles to his agenda. And he plans to scour the intelligence agencies, the State Department and the defense bureaucracies to remove officials he has vilified as “the sick political class that hates our country....."​

I think Trump wants people who are loyal to him over the courty and constitution. That is how I see him. Replacing good civil servants for one's own personal army who will loyal to him over the courtry is what I fear.

 

[Paulos23]

Replacing good civil servants for one's own personal army who will loyal to him over the courtry is what I fear.

Add to that the fact that he only looks out for number one and has run several business into the ground (his and others), there is no reason to give him an army like that.

He will run this country into the ground while telling us we are winning.

 

[Whyayeman]

You assigning the motivation that he is supposedly lying is not provable, accurate, nor a good debate tactic.

Here is what I said:

'...back under presidential authority, as the Constitution demands...'

Nothing is being brought back, since it was never there. This is reducing the power of the Senate and strengthening the power of the President. What in the Constitution 'demands' this? Nothing.

Two lies, right there.

There are two factual inaccuracies:

1. The powers were never taken away, so cannot be brought back;

2. The Constitution does not demand that those powers are in the hands of the president alone.

These are facts and not open for debate.

They could simply be examples of Trump's ignorance rather than lies. You could debate this but I have long ago ceased giving Trump the benefit of any doubt. He has never shown integrity.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Here is what I said:

There are two factual inaccuracies:

1. The powers were never taken away, so cannot be brought back;

2. The Constitution does not demand that those powers are in the hands of the president alone.

These are facts and not open for debate.

They could simply be examples of Trump's ignorance rather than lies. You could debate this but I have long ago ceased giving Trump the benefit of any doubt. He has never shown integrity.

They are open for debate when you do not present any proof or linked article showing you are correct -

 

[Always in His Presence]

I think this is of great concern:

​

"He intends to strip employment protections from tens of thousands of career civil servants, making it easier to replace them if they are deemed obstacles to his agenda. And he plans to scour the intelligence agencies, the State Department and the defense bureaucracies to remove officials he has vilified as “the sick political class that hates our country....."​

I think Trump wants people who are loyal to him over the courty and constitution. That is how I see him. Replacing good civil servants for one's own personal army who will loyal to him over the courtry is what I fear.

Beyond an opinion, there is zero proof. It is little more than a continuation of a negative narrative based on fear.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Beyond an opinion, there is zero proof. It is little more than a continuation of a negative narrative based on fear.

From the quoted article, there is this link:

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/agenda47/agenda47-president-trumps-plan-to-dismantle-the-deep-state-and-return-power-to-the-american-people

1. On Day One, re-issue 2020 executive order restoring the president’s authority to fire rogue bureaucrats.​

​

2. Overhaul federal departments and agencies, firing all of the corrupt actors in our National Security and Intelligence apparatus....​

​

4. Establish a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to declassify and publish all documents on Deep State spying, censorship, and abuses of power.​

​

I suspect "rogue bureaucrats" and "corrupt actors" are those that don't jump to his desires immediately, want to stick to the law of the land.

A dictator would want the same thing with himself being the one to decide who is corrupt or rogue.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Beyond an opinion, there is zero proof. It is little more than a continuation of a negative narrative based on fear.

How about his previous effort to do so? Just before the election (that he lost (fair and square)). Does that count?

"President Trump on Wednesday signed an executive order creating a new classification of “policy-making” federal employees that could strip swaths of the federal workforce of civil service protections just before the next president is sworn into office."

 

[stevil]

I don't believe anything the failing NY Times published unless there is real incontrovertible proof from other sources.

LOL "the failing NY Times" parroting the childish nicknames that D Trump blurts out, just shows how hyper partisan people are.

 

[stevil]

That was a principle of *small-government* conservatism, but that era is gone and we now have large-government "conservatism", though you may find other labels more illustrative.

They seem to be into small government when there is a Democratic Party government and into large government when D Trump is in government.

 

[stevil]

Conservatism is nearly dead in American politics.

They give the old Republicans, the conservatives a derogatory name to suggest they aren't really Republicans.

The new Republicans seem to be the Trump loyalists, through and through.

 

[Whyayeman]

They are open for debate when you do not present any proof or linked article showing you are correct -

The proof is is in post #30.

There is nothing to debate.