"Checks and balances"

[Belk]

I was a civil servant for many years and there was never any question that civil servants report to the executive.

Yes, as I noted. That does not mean they are to be loyal to a given administration. They are supposed to be a political so we don't end up with a situation like we had with Tammony hall.

 

[Valletta]

No. The constitution is in charge. Any judge can stop anyone...even the president, if he is not acting within his appropriate scope.

So believes people who don't want a left OR right wing dictatorship

Sorry, the Constitution is in charge. The president has full power to manage the executive branch, appoint employees to examine any executive branch records he wishes examined. Any of the over one thousand federal judges who tries to usurp executive branch power can be impeached.

 

[NxNW]

The Senate has the power of impeachment, which provides a check to the Supreme Court's power. But a large majority of Senators is required to impeach a Supreme Court Justice. That provides a check to the power of the Senate. The real checks and balances are working.

They're not working if the Justices are taking bribes.

 

[Fantine]

They're not working if the Justices are taking bribes.

What's the sense of impeaching Alito and Thomas? At the moment they would just be replaced by 45 year-old clones of themselves.

 

[Pommer]

Sorry, the Constitution is in charge. The president has full power to manage the executive branch, appoint employees to examine any executive branch records he wishes examined. Any of the over one thousand federal judges who tries to usurp executive branch power can be impeached.

Isn’t the majority of the agency creations of Congress?
Funded by the Congress, acting to do the will of the Congress by whichever Act of Congress created said agency?

A President can’t simply fire an entire agency without usurping the US House’s Constitutional Authority to control the purse. So far, the House seems okay with this, though, obedient and loyal, (doge, indeed!)

 

[Valletta]

Isn’t the majority of the agency creations of Congress?
Funded by the Congress, acting to do the will of the Congress by whichever Act of Congress created said agency?

A President can’t simply fire an entire agency without usurping the US House’s Constitutional Authority to control the purse. So far, the House seems okay with this, though, obedient and loyal, (doge, indeed!)

Congress has control over some organizations that serve Congress, such as the CRS or Library of Congress, but not over Executive Branch agencies.

 

[rambot]

Conservatives continue to point out that the Constitution gives the President of the United States, and not some lower level left-wing federal judge, the authority to manage the Executive Branch. The President is in charge.

I remember you saying that when Biden was in charge too!


Oh wait. No you didn't.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

I remember you saying that when Biden was in charge too!


Oh wait. No you didn't.

Legitimate President. Sheesh!

 

[rambot]

We can all see that quite a few right wingers in America just want a tyrant.

Just straight up.


Wow. Yall have regressed A LOT in the last decade

 

[Aryeh Jay]

We can all see that quite a few right wingers in America just want a tyrant.

Just straight up.


Wow. Yall have regressed A LOT in the last decade

So far that Berry Goldwater would be a Democrat.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

No, bureaucrats work for the United States government, not the president. He didn't hire them, he doesn't supervise them and he doesn't pay them. We have a merit system of civil service, for the moment.

Well, the federal government has only 3 branches - executive, legislative, and judicial. The bureaucracy has been acting as a 4th branch, accountable to no one. That is what this fight is intending to end.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

We can all see that quite a few right wingers in America just want a tyrant.

Just straight up.

Wow. Yall have regressed A LOT in the last decade

Actually, many of us have been yearning and praying for an end to the bureoucratic state for more than three decades. Restoring the executive branch to be accountable to the POTUS is not tyrany, but constitutional governance.

 

[DaisyDay]

Well, the federal government has only 3 branches - executive, legislative, and judicial. The bureaucracy has been acting as a 4th branch, accountable to no one. That is what this fight is intending to end.

That's not true. There are laws, rules and regulations that govern their actions. Congress makes the laws which the bureaucracy implement and carry out. The executive branch is supposed to execute, i.e. carry out, those laws.

Actually, many of us have been yearning and praying for an end to the bureoucratic state for more than three decades.

A functioning bureaucracy is necessary for a successful country. Taking out the bureaucrats who implement the laws will result in a failed state.

Restoring the executive branch to be accountable to the POTUS is not tyrany, but constitutional governance.

Flouting the nation's laws to remove civil servants willy-nilly is not constitutional. Having some independence from the politics of the president is a best practice. The president is not king. Lex rex not rex lex.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/07/02/origins-of-the-declaration-of-independence-samuel-rutherfords-lex-rex/

Independence Day can be a time for reflection about whether the United States will continue to be, in the words that John Adams put into the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution, “a government of laws and not of men.”​

 

[rambot]

Actually, many of us have been yearning and praying for an end to the bureoucratic state for more than three decades. Restoring the executive branch to be accountable to the POTUS is not tyrany, but constitutional governance.

Sorry? Your argument is that the president was not a part of the executive branch (along with vice and cabinet etc) for some period of time?

 

[Fantine]

Actually, many of us have been yearning and praying for an end to the bureoucratic state for more than three decades. Restoring the executive branch to be accountable to the POTUS is not tyrany, but constitutional governance.

It depends on who the president is.
If the current president was capable of this he wouldn't have outsourced it to a billionaire and his Gen Z computer geeks.

 

[rambot]

Actually, many of us have been yearning and praying for an end to the bureoucratic state for more than three decades. Restoring the executive branch to be accountable to the POTUS is not tyrany, but constitutional governance.

There are Americans who would be 100% supportive of the spending being done by those organizations. Presidents could have stopped some of that spending...they didn't. Maybe they also saw value in it.

This"bureaucratic state" talk appears more like attempts to separate this action from the suffering it will inevitably create.

I mean Trump had a reputation for ignoring briefings. Why didn't he stop that kind of spending first term? Because he was clueless then. He hasn't become more attuned. He just hired people he refused to allow to be vetted and who are far more competent than him....but will still do as he demands.

 

[rjs330]

No, they work FOR the American people at the DIRECTION of the president. the civil service is designed to be apolitical and should not be spoils awarded to loyalists.

Every givernment worker works for the American people. But the American people don't sit in their offices telling g them what to do and creating policies and processes. Try going down to the DMV and ordering the employees around and see what happens.

You aewnt walking into an office in Washington and telling the workers they have to spend the money given to them.by Congress on trans surgeries in Guatemala.

Comon' man.

If the bureauocracies are supposed to be apolitical then why are they acting so political? If they are apolitical then why did so many come out and say they were going to oppose Trump. That's not apolitical at all. Their job is to work on behalf of the American people and the American people have spoken and want change. They are to follow the will.of the people and not oppose it. So they arwnt even acting like they work for us as you say.

 

[rjs330]

There are Americans who would be 100% supportive of the spending being done by those organizations. Presidents could have stopped some of that spending...they didn't. Maybe they also saw value in it.

The majority of Americans wouldn't support and didn't support a lot of the spending from the givernemnt on these things. There are surveys out there that show this.

Just cause the governent spent the money doeant mean it's valuable.

mean Trump had a reputation for ignoring briefings. Why didn't he stop that kind of spending first term? Because he was clueless then. He hasn't become more attuned. He just hired people he refused to allow to be vetted and who are far more competent than him....but will still do as he demands.

We've gotten a better version of Trump this time around. He's had four years to go over his first presidency and he's doing this differently now. As you say I think he's hiring better people.

 

[rjs330]

No, bureaucrats work for the United States government, not the president. He didn't hire them, he doesn't supervise them and he doesn't pay them. We have a merit system of civil service, for the moment.

That's parently absurd. The preaident is the chief executive. He has the ability to hire and fire all of those beneath him. He has delegated this to others to handle. For example, of i work for a University the President is the chief executive and has the power over the university and how its run. She probably didn't hire me directly and has delegated that to her departments to do that. But if she decided that I screwed up enough she could see to it that I am fired. She sets the goals, policies, procedures etc for the entire University. Doea she create them herself? No, she delegates. But if she sees a policy or procedure that is not working then she can order it changed. And if it's not she could fire people and hire someone who will follow her orders.

Thats the way things work. The President sets the agenda, goals, policiea and procedures of everything in the Executive branch. Eveyone there works under his authority. He supervises all.of it. And since it is so big he can't do it all himself. So just like the President of the university he delegates to others responsibility to see that his agenda and vision is carried out.

 

[rjs330]

I remember you saying that when Biden was in charge too!


Oh wait. No you didn't.

No he wasn't in charge. He wasn't competent enough to be. His cabinet and Harris was running things. But he was the figurehead and as such was reaponsible for all the failures.