Looks like the EPA is being targeted (Even though ninety-five percent of the funding going to EPA has not only been appropriated, but is locked in, legally obligated grant funding. The Constitution does not give the president a line item veto over Congress's spending decisions):
The President's ability to affect spending is definitely limited, and hasn't been exercised really since Reagan, but still exists.
Congress rarely makes spending money it's goal, rather it appropriates money to accomplish some goal. Which is to say that if Congress wants a bridge across a river and appropriate 10 billion to build it, the President is not obligated to spend $10 billion if 7 or 8 or 9 will do. In some cases, Congress does appropriate money toward causes and intends all the money to be spent in furtherance of some guiding principle and in these cases all the money must be spent.
If that money has already been awarded to be given out the executive can not arbritrality withdraw it. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946 contains the rule that prevents the U.S. executive branch from acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Trump was already slapped for doing this by the Supreme Court in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California.
I believe they tries impeaching him in 2021. At the time, though, even people like Tucker thought his career was over after his behaviour.
But I suppose 4 years with Biden/Kamala made it easier to forgive him, for many. Not just the MAGA base, but even swing voters.
Honestly, I think Democrats were contributing to this by the outrage over the January 6 riots. Half the country would consider the BLM riots as equally bad.
If instead, Democrats had focused on Trump's betrayal of Pence and general disregard for the institutions and traditions of the country, a lot more moderates would remain with the Democrats.
But as a foreigner, it seems to me that the prosecution of the Jan 6 rioters, not to mention Trump himself was excessive and overtly politically motivated. And it definitely took attention away from the less spectacular, but far more obviously immoral behavior he definitely, provably WAS guilty of leading up to January 6.
Normal riots and criminality are very different from the attempted overthrow of a democratic government.
If the anti-Brexit brigade had descended on Downing Street with violence, with nooses swinging, after Boris Johnson in 2019 I personally would consider that far worse than say the riots in London in 2011 or the recent Southport originated ones.
I'll probably be downvoted for this, but don't you think winning the popular vote is similar to being found "not guilty" after appealing to a higher court?
I for one do not think that they are similar because an election is a popularity contest not a logical examination of facts, and voters are not required to sit through a thorough presentation of the facts in evidence, which means they tend to make less than ideal jurors.
It's at least a little akin to jury nullification, where the jury finds an obviously guilty person not guilty out of a belief the law is unjust.
(You hear about it on the Internet as a way to Fight The Man on eg arrests stemming from protests or minor drug charges, but historically it was more often used to absolve white supremacists of murder.)
The jury system is not intended as a substitute for the law, it's intended as a safeguard to protect from the subjectivity of judges. Juries, like all of the legal system, are still intended to be subordinate to the legislative branch's decisions in terms of what is and isn't wrong.
Jury nullification is a weird rule that goes against the constitutional framework, but is so rarely used, at least for any important matter, that it has never really received too much scrutiny.
A lot has been written about this. The jury system has many purposes, but I don't think protection against individual subjective or corrupt judges are among the most important. (If anything, judges are much more likely to be objective than jurors.)
Rather, juries are generally a mechanism to prevent overreach by the executive (primarily) but also other branches of government (including the legislative branch). Not necessarily by going directly against laws (though that could also happen), but for instance by identifying laws that contradict the principles of the constitution. (Or other "deeper" laws, for that matter.)
Jefferson wrote : "Another apprehension is that a majority cannot be induced to adopt the trial by jury; and I consider that as the only anchor, ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of it’s constitution." [1]
Now, a liberal interpretation of this is that a jury has an independent power, possibly even a duty, to disregard laws they consider to be against the legal basis (constitution, legal traditions, etc) of a country, basically overruling the legislative in such cases.
In fact, this type of thinking is probably a big part of the reason why the SCOTUS will not and can not override many aspects of jury verdicts. Specifically, even the SCOTUS cannot overturn an aquittal.
In other cases (such as when the SCOTUS thinks the jury has violated the constitution, due process hasn't been followed, etc) it will instead invalidate a decision. (Which can lead to the case being dismissed or to a retrial, depending on the details)
There are also some that feel he was unjustly singled out by politically motivated prosecutors.
But if you you think there is no risk that the justice system can be misused for such political ends, then I suppose you have the same problems with Biden pardoning Hunter and half his family to protect them from politically motivated prosecution?
Or is it only wrong when Republicans do it?
At minimum I would say that the general public in a general election should have the same power to effetively pardon someone as the President has. After all, the electorate is the basis from which the President draws his power and legitimacy.
And not only for the President, by the way. The legitimacy of the entire system, including both Congress and the Legal System draws its legitimacy from the same source (even if the Constitution is designed to provide protection against short term simple majorities).
If the outcome of the vote cannot be accepted, then that basically means the country cannot remain a democracy.
Personally, I don't think I could have voted for Trump after how he behaved in January 2021 (if I were a citizen). Primarily because of how he betrayed Pence.
But Biden and Kamala sure made it a lot easier for him in 2024 than it would have been if the country had been led by someone like Obama.
The difference is Trump prosecution wasn't politically motivated, he legit did the crimes. Outside of Hunter Biden, who never actually had a role in the administration, no one did anything illegal. Trump has been produced to an unprecedented degree because he committed crimes to an unprecedented degree.
> But if you you think there is no risk that the justice system can be misused for such political ends, then I suppose you have the same problems with Biden pardoning Hunter and half his family to protect them from politically motivated prosecution?
Well, Trump made his intentions of prosecuting Fauci, Hunter Biden and many many others more than abundantly clear. He can't whine about Biden protecting people from the threat he himself had announced. (Well, he obviously can and does, and half the population falls for it)
The general population is not able to grasp broader issues like COVID 19 response, climate change, addressing inequality and systemic barriers to health/employment/life that don't directly impact themselves, or understand that you can't just hit spokes with a wrench when it comes to the government without the system falling apart anymore than my cat can plan ahead to get dinner. And I am not saying I am smarter in areas outside my lane and also get manipulated but there is no uncertainty he, were he ANYONE else, would be guilty of at least some of what has been investigates (Jan 6, hush money to say least) which has been pushed away for political reasons by those propping him up. What you say just shows people can be manipulated by media, group think, religion and oligarchs into voting against their own interests yet again and zero, truly zero pity that hurt themselves supporting him. Us Canadians have our own populists too on the right working against my values (Smith, PP, Ford) but at least they aren't criminals out for revenge.
I take it that you think there should be no requirements to be president, since winning the popular vote when you are ineligible is similar to the population deciding you are actually eligible?
Clinton did try to pass something but it was vetoed. Pretty much all case law in this area has ruled thst Congress's budget is final and very hard to modify.
Trump's case was a completely constitutional overreach. Thankfully they shot it down fast in court.
And people saying "Congress controls spending, not the President" - there are already reports of Musk trying to take control of the system that sends out money.
I'm more afraid of Musk getting access to IRS information and using that information against people/intimidate/blackmail. Remember people are compelled to report all kinds of things on the understanding that 1. It won't be used against them and 2. Will be kept confidential. If Musk breaks that not only does he wield a powerful weapon against those he dislikes, but suddenly it could be argued 'the right to self incrimination' comes into play on taxes.
Congress appropriates money to be spend. Executive branch ... 'executes' things with appropriated money. Previous Trump administration tested a lot of norms, and current one is going to be pushing past every boundary of normal/accepted/traditional behaviour we've ever seen. The will of the people, expressed through Congress, is that Dept X gets $Y, but the incoming admin is claiming their own 'will of the people mandate' to completely upend how appropriated money is spent, and indeed, if it's spent at all. When you do not believe government agencies should exist, why would you want to enable them to spend money?
Well, we'll see what the courts do - and maybe more importantly - what the people on the street do when/if it starts affecting their lives.
I'm not a legal scholar, but I'm going to guess that saying "congress appropriates money, but the President can decide if they actually get it" is a pretty fringe idea.
It's called impoundment and it's patently illegal and unconstitutional. There's already been a SCOTUS case. The executive branch absolutely does not have the authority to decide how money is allocated.
The executive branch having the power of selective enforcement and pardon generally seems like it might have an impact on the relevance of any supposed authority.
Most of the MAGA ideas are fringe. And they're pissed they've not been 'listened to' for years. That's part of the point. This is all revenge/retribution, both on Trump's part, but also for a minority class of people who've felt 'left out' and 'ridiculed'.
Shame, maybe they should have focused on subsidizing therapy.
I don't even know what more to say. Paradox of tolerance so I'm no even going to pretend to empathize with ideas like"deport the illegals in chains " and ćmy body your choice".
Isn't this whole thing just a bunch of political grandstanding?
Train v. City of New York isn't a constitutional case. So if Congress controls spending, it's a power they gave to themselves. Any other portion of government could likewise determine they control spending. So maybe it goes back to the SCOTUS because they agree to hear another case about it. Maybe they like the idea that the executive branch controls spending? Or maybe they don't after all. The tell the President to stop doing that. But the president does not. Does Congress pass another law reaffirming they control the power for spending?
If the executive branch is in charge of running the government and they listen to the President & the President decide's they aren't spending any money, who exactly is going to change that? Would Congress fund another department to change this? Would it also just report to the President?
From what I understand it's actually pretty common for the executive branch not to actually be able to spend appropriated money. The simplest case would be if you put out a contract and get no bids on it. There are other cases, like Congress agreeing to fund military submarines for Taiwan. But no one is going to build them internationally and we don't build diesel-electric combat submarines in the US as a matter of policy.
The legislature is the supreme power in the federal government with the power to impeach the other two branches. So no, it's not political grandstanding. Now if the congressional majority allows for the executive to take an illegal amount of power there's no one to stop that, in the same way that I'd the police stop enforcing laws against their own family members there's not really anyone to enforce those laws in their place.
Hmm, I'm not sure if "is it legal" would be at the top of my priority list if I was working (in good faith) on the team to recover the country from a nose dive and prevent world war 3. But it is ok to disagree on whether those things actually are real imminent risks to fix.
The key fact here is that the president was elected by the people in a time of crisis (both for the country and the world). Laws are not perfect, sometimes you have to be bold and take risks. The election is a seal of trust to get the job done.
Now if a president is not doing their job, not improving the lives of the citizens, and doing things for personal gain, that's another matter. That was more of a description of the previous administration, but I know I will probably get some downvotes here for saying so.
Removing data about provably unfair things like DEI is only going to upset people who still are hanging on to any hope that it will return. BTW, I check several of the boxes for DEI, and I'd rather it be gone as well. That ship has sailed and the president decided it is time to move past that phase for the greater good. I wouldn't call that an abuse of power. And even if it was, the same people saying so cried wolf so many times before, that it undermined trust in the system of checks and balances. So here we are.
There is some action , certain states have already started suing. But it takes some time and effort to file suits that are watertight, it's harder and slower than just writing illegal, unconstitutional, or inapplicable acts
Trump is basically doing a blitzkrieg of EO's. Lawsuits are happening slowly between judges injuctioning Trump's budget freeze, employees suing the government over the OP issues, and states suing over various orders. But so much is happening at once that it's hard to keep track of your full time job isn't politics.
> "While 5 CFR 315 does permit immediate termination, it does not permit arbitrary termination. The termination must be related to unsatisfactory performance or conduct (section 804) or conditions arising before employment, which usually means something from your background investigation (section 805)..."
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946 contains the rule that prevents the U.S. executive branch from acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Definitely not legit.
The Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) precludes APA review amongst other relief (since it precludes district court jurisdiction entirely). That being said, this "termination" is likely invalid under the CSRA.
Please see Elgin v. Dept. of Treasury 567 U.S. 1 (2012) for details.
I would not take definitions of "arbitrary" or "capricious" for granted. Legal words never mean what most people think they mean, especially once the Supreme Court gets their hands on it.
This term is well defined in settled case law over the last 80 years. Thee Supreme Court already ruled Trump can not do these sort of arbitrary and capricious executive orders his last term.
I'm not sure he really cares if these actions get overturned. At least some of them will be sustained, even if only because somebody's lawyers faffs oral arguments. And I suspect that he'll just ignore the court in some cases. How many legions hath the Supreme Court?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/epa-employees-warned-of-immedia...