The Imperial Presidency Gets More Powerful

[maxparrish]

While Trump is busy launching Russian styled mass assaults on Constitutional rights and US law, it appears that most have been rebuffed - with a few succeeding. One of those successes couldl vastly increase the power of the imperial Presidency and make law by Congress weaker than ever.

A few days ago the Supreme Court stayed a district court order blocking President Trump from removing members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board. It appears to attack along-standingg precedent in effect since 1935, (Humphrey's Executor) and "has the potential to effectively eliminate independent regulatory agencies as a category. "

The agencies were created by Congress to be independent and not subject to the whims of whatever President was in power, which is why the boards are balanced between the major parties and given a degree of independence from a President's whims and his or her crony interest groups.

Baude on Trump v. Wilcox: "Predictable and Reasonable"

A defense of the Supreme Court's decision to let President Trump remove members of the NLRB and MSPB.

reason.com

 

[Rich2018]

While Trump is busy launching Russian styled mass assaults on Constitutional rights and US law, it appears that most have been rebuffed - with a few succeeding. One of those successes couldl vastly increase the power of the imperial Presidency and make law by Congress weaker than ever.

A few days ago the Supreme Court stayed a district court order blocking President Trump from removing members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board. It appears to attack along-standingg precedent in effect since 1935, (Humphrey's Executor) and "has the potential to effectively eliminate independent regulatory agencies as a category. "

The agencies were created by Congress to be independent and not subject to the whims of whatever President was in power, which is why the boards are balanced between the major parties and given a degree of independence from a President's whims and his or her crony interest groups.

Baude on Trump v. Wilcox: "Predictable and Reasonable"

A defense of the Supreme Court's decision to let President Trump remove members of the NLRB and MSPB.

reason.com

Let's hope that this stay is only temporary.

 

[Integrityrespec]

While Trump is busy launching Russian styled mass assaults on Constitutional rights and US law, it appears that most have been rebuffed - with a few succeeding. One of those successes couldl vastly increase the power of the imperial Presidency and make law by Congress weaker than ever.

A few days ago the Supreme Court stayed a district court order blocking President Trump from removing members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board. It appears to attack along-standingg precedent in effect since 1935, (Humphrey's Executor) and "has the potential to effectively eliminate independent regulatory agencies as a category. "

The agencies were created by Congress to be independent and not subject to the whims of whatever President was in power, which is why the boards are balanced between the major parties and given a degree of independence from a President's whims and his or her crony interest groups.

Baude on Trump v. Wilcox: "Predictable and Reasonable"

A defense of the Supreme Court's decision to let President Trump remove members of the NLRB and MSPB.

reason.com

The agencies are involved in Executive branch action, says the SCOTUS and thus subject to the Presidents dismissal.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Can congress create a fourth branch, which ‘independently’ makes its own rules and (selectively?) enforces them, of the federal government?

 

[ModernDiogenes]

The only answer is a midterm election with sufficient end result to pass new legislation that places new law in front of these SCOTUS decisions that is veto proof because there are over 67 votes in the Senate to overturn any veto.

Gets rid of this, Citizen's United, the overturning of Roe, etc. and so forth.

That makes it up to us, the electorate. If that is what we want, we can get it, A House majority and a Senate super majority.

 

[Pyrite]

The only answer is a midterm election with sufficient end result to pass new legislation that places new law in front of these SCOTUS decisions that is veto proof because there are over 67 votes in the Senate to overturn any veto.

Gets rid of this, Citizen's United, the overturning of Roe, etc. and so forth.

That makes it up to us, the electorate. If that is what we want, we can get it, A House majority and a Senate super majority.

Then hope like hell that the Republican Party discards its affinity for a cult of personality, eschews fake facts, demonization of others, and pandering to putin, and joins with the other major political party in governing the country established by the Founding Fathers.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Then hope like hell that the Republican Party discards its affinity for a cult of personality, eschews fake facts, demonization of others, and pandering to putin, and joins with the other major political party in governing the country established by the Founding Fathers.

There is a damn slim chance of what I am talking about taking place BUT, to be honest with you, I think it would have a better chance of occurring if MAGA and Trump double down, truly piss off the remaining two thirds of us to see it straight, and then those two thirds put the House and Senate in its gerrymandered state where there are the sufficient counts to pass the required legislation.

 

[j brown's body]

Can congress create a fourth branch, which ‘independently’ makes its own rules and (selectively?) enforces them, of the federal government?

That's the argument for favoring a political bureaucracy?

Not sure they give Powell pass.

 

[j brown's body]

Then hope like hell that the Republican Party discards its affinity for a cult of personality, eschews fake facts, demonization of others, and pandering to putin, and joins with the other major political party in governing the country established by the Founding Fathers.

At this point, they want a dictator.

 

[Integrityrespec]

While Trump is busy launching Russian styled mass assaults on Constitutional rights and US law, it appears that most have been rebuffed - with a few succeeding. One of those successes couldl vastly increase the power of the imperial Presidency and make law by Congress weaker than ever.

A few days ago the Supreme Court stayed a district court order blocking President Trump from removing members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board. It appears to attack along-standingg precedent in effect since 1935, (Humphrey's Executor) and "has the potential to effectively eliminate independent regulatory agencies as a category. "

The agencies were created by Congress to be independent and not subject to the whims of whatever President was in power, which is why the boards are balanced between the major parties and given a degree of independence from a President's whims and his or her crony interest groups.

Baude on Trump v. Wilcox: "Predictable and Reasonable"

A defense of the Supreme Court's decision to let President Trump remove members of the NLRB and MSPB.

reason.com

Certainly to democrats/progressives who all seem to hate this great country and the women who live in it I'm sure Trump is your enemy. You accusationn of Russian styled assaults on Constitutional rights are hilarious. Defend women by putting men in womens sports, defend Americans by bringing 20 millionn illegals into teh country to be supported financially by the taxpayers. Democrats party is in the toilet, it's been headed there for two decades adn the need for voters created the millions of illegal immigrants and the assualt on women. You think anything otherwise and you are that sorry piece of hmanity that you keep claiming is Trump. Check your confusion before you reply.

 

[rahl]

Certainly to democrats/progressives who all seem to hate this great country and the women who live in it I'm sure Trump is your enemy. You accusationn of Russian styled assaults on Constitutional rights are hilarious. Defend women by putting men in womens sports, defend Americans by bringing 20 millionn illegals into teh country to be supported financially by the taxpayers. Democrats party is in the toilet, it's been headed there for two decades adn the need for voters created the millions of illegal immigrants and the assualt on women. You think anything otherwise and you are that sorry piece of hmanity that you keep claiming is Trump. Check your confusion before you reply.

This is a completely unhinged and batshit crazy rant.

 

[anatta]

The stay also reflects our judgment that the Government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a
removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable
to perform her statutory duty.

 

[maxparrish]

The agencies are involved in Executive branch action, says the SCOTUS and thus subject to the Presidents dismissal.

Can congress create a fourth branch, which ‘independently’ makes its own rules and (selectively?) enforces them, of the federal government?

In my view, in answer to the last question, "yes in part."

Partially informed by Kagan's dissent, here is my personal view:

Legally, the case of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U. S. 602 (1935), is the foundation for "governance: that of bipartisan administrative bodies carrying out policy" provides less politics and a more informed and balanced view, independent of direct legislative and presidential control. Congress thought that a group of people from both parties—none of whom a President could remove without cause—would advance the long-term public good by less partisan and more balanced management.

If, as has been found by the courts, Congress has authority to "loan" or "outsource" its legislative law-making powers to regulate labor wages, hours, and working conditions then it follows that it has the right to "loan" or "outsource" its powers under whatever terms and conditions it chooses. As the President has no inherent executive authority to regulate wages or benefits (as opposed to his inherit authority to make treaties or act as commander in Chief) it is solely within the provenance of Congress to determine the scope and manner of their "loan" of powers, ie; that which a Congress freely loans in law must the President must execute following the terms of the loan.

Congress is, by statutory law, is providing its own quasi-legislative power and creating an executive authority in an area not within the President's Constitutional provenance. Accordingly, if the President does not like the terms of the grant of authority, he or she is free to veto it. But he or she is not free to ignore it.

Otherwise, he must execute the law as written: period. And if that means he can't fire a board member "just because" he wants to then so be it.

Seems right to me.

 

[Integrityrespec]

This is a completely unhinged and batshit crazy rant.

Only to a democrat/progressive or independent who sides with the left on most policy choices. Men in womens sports, sex change surgeries for children, open borders and protecting criminal from justice. So if you think I BS crazy, that just convinces me I'm doing it right.

 

[soap box]

Only to a democrat/progressive or independent who sides with the left on most policy choices. Men in womens sports, sex change surgeries for children, open borders and protecting criminal from justice. So if you think I BS crazy, that just convinces me I'm doing it right.

I just read your post and I forgot all about what the thread was.

 

[rahl]

Only to a democrat/progressive or independent who sides with the left on most policy choices.

No. It was objectively an unhinged rant.

Men in womens sports,

I fully denounce such unfair practices.

sex change surgeries for children,

I fully denounce such practices and support laws barring any medical provider from performing them on anyone under 18.

open borders and protecting criminal from justice.

This is the unhinged rant part. The border has been just as “open” for the past 40 years. It’s not a Democrat or Republican thing.

So if you think I BS crazy, that just convinces me I'm doing it right.

You are ranting in an unhinged and detached from reality manner.

 

[bomberfox]

This is what Heritage has been wanting for decades, a trump like presidency. The Heritage foundation never stood for freedom, just a bunch of disgruntled ex burchers trying to weasel their way out of integration and public accomodation laws and anti abortion folks.

 

[bomberfox]

Then hope like hell that the Republican Party discards its affinity for a cult of personality, eschews fake facts, demonization of others, and pandering to putin, and joins with the other major political party in governing the country established by the Founding Fathers.

The republican party is dead. I wouldnt bank on it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

In my view, in answer to the last question, "yes in part."

Partially informed by Kagan's dissent, here is my personal view:

Legally, the case of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U. S. 602 (1935), is the foundation for "governance: that of bipartisan administrative bodies carrying out policy" provides less politics and a more informed and balanced view, independent of direct legislative and presidential control. Congress thought that a group of people from both parties—none of whom a President could remove without cause—would advance the long-term public good by less partisan and more balanced management.

If, as has been found by the courts, Congress has authority to "loan" or "outsource" its legislative law-making powers to regulate labor wages, hours, and working conditions then it follows that it has the right to "loan" or "outsource" its powers under whatever terms and conditions it chooses. As the President has no inherent executive authority to regulate wages or benefits (as opposed to his inherit authority to make treaties or act as commander in Chief) it is solely within the provenance of Congress to determine the scope and manner of their "loan" of powers, ie; that which a Congress freely loans in law must the President must execute following the terms of the loan.

Congress is, by statutory law, is providing its own quasi-legislative power and creating an executive authority in an area not within the President's Constitutional provenance. Accordingly, if the President does not like the terms of the grant of authority, he or she is free to veto it. But he or she is not free to ignore it.

Otherwise, he must execute the law as written: period. And if that means he can't fire a board member "just because" he wants to then so be it.

Seems right to me.

Yep, that’s a minority SCOTUS opinion. There are three (not more) branches of federal power defined by our constitution.

 

[SMTA]

While Trump is busy launching Russian styled mass assaults on Constitutional rights and US law, it appears that most have been rebuffed - with a few succeeding. One of those successes couldl vastly increase the power of the imperial Presidency and make law by Congress weaker than ever.

A few days ago the Supreme Court stayed a district court order blocking President Trump from removing members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board. It appears to attack along-standingg precedent in effect since 1935, (Humphrey's Executor) and "has the potential to effectively eliminate independent regulatory agencies as a category. "

The agencies were created by Congress to be independent and not subject to the whims of whatever President was in power, which is why the boards are balanced between the major parties and given a degree of independence from a President's whims and his or her crony interest groups.

Baude on Trump v. Wilcox: "Predictable and Reasonable"

A defense of the Supreme Court's decision to let President Trump remove members of the NLRB and MSPB.

reason.com

Soap box -> ballot box -> jury box -> cartridge box
We’re at DEFCON 3 right now.

 

[Along Came Jones]

Soap box -> ballot box -> jury box -> cartridge box
We’re at DEFCON 3 right now.

I do not believe so. Not even close.

Soap box->2026 Ballot Box->Unknown Outcome->2028 Presidential Ballot Box

 

[Rich2018]

Can congress create a fourth branch, which ‘independently’ makes its own rules and (selectively?) enforces them, of the federal government?

No, that would require a constitutional change.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

The agencies are involved in Executive branch action, says the SCOTUS and thus subject to the Presidents dismissal.

Give it time.

Der Fuhrer Trumpler will be removed from office and so will the reich-wing members of the SCOTUS.

 

[maxparrish]

Yep, that’s a minority SCOTUS opinion. There are three (not more) branches of federal power defined by our constitution.

Having been a conservative-libertarian my entire political life, I am used to being in the minority...until enough people wake up. That's fine with me as my sense of truth and integrity to support the truth is far greater than my desire to be popular - unlike some opportunist flip floppers on Trump.

Legalistically Kagan makes a powerful case, as described by those who disagree with her at Volokh and the WSJ opinion pages. However, my own view is simply one of logical coherence, whether or not it neatly fits into current legal doctrine.

Congress has the sole ability to make statutory law and to the degree it has outsourced a portion of that power to federal agencies in the form of regulation making and administrative procedures, it still owns the process through law. The President, be they Biden or Trump or Obama was only given a limit range of executive discretion mostly oriented towards the functions related to foreign relations and to serve as "executive", executing those functions enumerated in the constitution.

None the less, each branch has its sperate powers, specifically assigned only to them. IF it is constitutional to loan out such power (and I am not sure I agree it should) THEN it follows it may do so under the terms and condition of the law that creates and enables the President to act as executive in an area not proscribed in the constitution.

And independent agency is simply a creature of Congress, making "law" for Congress. The ONLY change to this and current doctrine should be that the President should have the right to veto said regulations on the basis that it does not follow the law, upon which Congress can override the veto or contest it in court.

That is my view. But till then, the President cannot be allowed to change the conditional terms already approved through legislation.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Can congress create a fourth branch, which ‘independently’ makes its own rules and (selectively?) enforces them, of the federal government?

A fourth branch would be a fundamental change in the structure of the government as designed in the Constitution so I would think it would take a Constitutional Amendent to do sucha thing. I don't see that happening at this point with government so divided by party.