Thatâs the problem!
1 Like
Question
Did section 1 of the Federal Trade Commission Act unconstitutionally interfere with the executive power of the President?
Conclusion
The unanimous Court found that the FTC Act was constitutional and that Humphreyâs dismissal on policy grounds was unjustified. The Court reasoned that the Constitution had never given âillimitable power of removalâ to the president. Justice Sutherland dismissed the governmentâs main line of defense in this case which relied heavily on the Courtâs decision in Myers v. United States (1926). In that case the Court upheld the presidentâs right to remove officers who were âunits of the executive department.â The FTC was different, argued Sutherland, because it was a body created by Congress to perform quasi-legislative and judicial functions. The Myers precedent, therefore, did not apply in this situation.
I fully expected you would point to that one.
But it isnât relevant.
With Trumpâs EO, he simply removed the OIRA exemption for independent agencies put in place by Clinton back in 1993.
The article I linked provides a good independent analysis of Trumpâs EO, relatively free of political spin. Iâm anxious to see how it plays out in the courts.
not executive functions.
every single independent agency with executive power should immediately be bought under the executive where the power is vested in the President alone or be disbanded.
If the congress wishes to create independent agencies whoâs only power is to gather information which they would then report to the congress in its attempts at legitimate oversite, or refer cases to the executive, thatâs fine. These agencies should have NO authority to impose fines or create regulation on their own.
1 Like
The court will soon need to very specifically determine what is executive power. If congress were allowed to just create any agency over which the President did not have control, they would soon be able to take over every executive power of the President and leave him as a figurehead.
4 Likes
Iâll repost this here too:
1 Like
Congress creates these cabinet level entities due to needs or situations that arise that cause government to take action. When our rivers were on fire, we created the EPA. When schools needed a more dedicated system to address funding rural areas for schools, the DOE was created. Are there some of these departments still needed, or need to be trimmed down? Possibly.
Clinton did address this, and it took years to implement many of the changes. What eventually happened, there were fewer government workers. but the work still needed to be done. so it was outsourced to contractors. which actually costs more.
Most people have no idea what the government does, as it only notices the times when government fails. We will see how all of this sudden and massive cuts to programs and staff will effect people. Many of those contractor positions are in red states, that support various government jobs. People who work in the government get paid a decent salary, and spend that money in these towns. How all of this effects the economy in these areas will is unknown. We shall see.
Also the absurd position that most government workers are not working hard, and just collecting a check is simply not true. Most people who choose to work for the government do so wanting to help, or give something back to the country they love. Many are highly educated and could make more in the private sectorâŚbut choose to work for the government. There are programs that try to recruit the best people for many of these positions. People hired by the government are held accountable for their work ethic and performance, just like any other org.
With this recent actions, we are losing many legacy folks who are very good at what they do. Replacing them will be difficult.
Thus, he didnât really address it.
He rearranged the furniture.
Trump has ordered a king-sized roll-off to dispose of the broken furniture.
3 Likes
He addressed it, there were cuts. Musk appears to be disposing a lot of needed furniture.
We shall seeâŚ
From your own post:
And that launch just accelerated in subsequent presidential administrations.
Libs see what they want to see. Libs will see what they want to see.
2 Likes
Iâm having all I can do to keep from laughing.
In the US Air Force, I was a software engineer. If you include my Air Force experience, I spent about 25% of my career working for the government.
It is in my nature is to innovate and solve complex problems. My Air Force experience is but one of three Government jobs Iâve held. In each of those jobs I felt smothered.
As you point out, in each case, I was surrounded by competent qualified people. But for the most part, they were all about maintaining the status quo; not rocking the boat. They werenât risk takers, because unnecessary risks were frowned upon (donât rock the boat) and there was no reward for showing initiative.
In each of the three government jobs (the first was an apprenticeship fresh out of high school), I was transitioning to a different stage in my career. I couldnât wait to move on and be in a position to fully exploit my talents.
As a hiring manager in the private sector, I would not have hired any of those I worked with in the Government sector. When I look for a prospective hire, beyond qualifications, Iâm very interested in hearing what kinds of things they have done for the company they are coming from. I want to hear about innovative ideas they might have and how they would use them in my department and for the company I worked for.
1 Like
Reagan once said the government will never voluntarily reduce its size. It is the next best thing we have to eternal life on earth. I believe we are finding how true those words are with the amount of backlash coming from predominantly democrats.
2 Likes
This is quite simply not true. The federal government employed more people the day Reagan left office than it does today. It has not âgrown and grown without checkâ It has shrunk. Itâs true that state government employment has grown but thatâs hardly attributable to the federal government.
As a share of all employment, Federal employment has been reduced dramatically. Ditto, as a share of the population.
You failed to take into account the contractors that replaced them. Maybe you skipped that part in the link. That started with Clinton, and libs hailed the way he âshrunkâ government.
3 Likes
Guilds specifically stated that we donât know yet the impact of these cuts. We shall see.
And even Elon Musk himself said he has âaccidentallyâ cut staff the government actually neededâŚand needed to hire them back (and guess what? The ended up COSTING us money, not saving it).
Turns out the Elon method of taking a chainsaw and breaking everything, but âdonât worry, if we find out we needed something, weâll put it back inâ works fine for building social media sites or rocketsâŚbut not so well on making government work âmore efficientlyâ.
Of course, that presupposes the goal is actually to make government work more efficiently.
If that ISNâT the goal, then randomly taking a wrecking ball to government institutions may be the âright methodâ.
If only we could knowâŚoh wait, we CAN know.
We can listen to what the tech bros like Musk and Thiel and Thielâs ward JD Vance have had to say on the subject of government.
HmmâŚif only there was a way to find that outâŚ
1 Like
So what you are saying is that private firms are now doing work that federal government employees used to do? Is that what you are saying?
I will be the first to say that unions for federal workers should be outlawed.
The federal government needs to have the ability to downsize when they need to should they determined certain tasks are no longer in the purview of the federal government.
We do need to protect federal workersâ rights and competitively pay them for needed government workâŚbut no unions.
1 Like
Is there a problem with that?
It costs more.
