GAO says top DHS heads ineligible

Politics
1

The appointments of two top Department of Homeland Security officials, including the acting secretary, violated federal law, according to a Government Accountability Office report issued Friday.
they say that both acting secretary wolf and deputy Cuccinelli are technically ineligible to serve based on their improper appointment.

the report is not legally binding but is further ammo to question the legality of any of their actions. I wonder if a court will just issue a blanket order rolling back any of their actions.

1 Like
2

you apparently are unfamiliar with the administrative procedures act. all kinds of legally and constitutionally questionable things can be done, and then can only be undone if you dot some I’s, cross some T’s and jump through several burning hoops.

3

No, this isn’t about the APA.

This is about an entirely different law that Trump has failed to follow.

You’re right though - failure to follow the law does appear to be a pattern.

4

no this is about the apa. if you want to undo what they do, even if its completely unconstitutional, you have to turn in the right paperwork and be sure to include your homework with it.

5

No, this isn’t about the APA. The APA provides a legal framework for changes in federal regulations. This thread is about appointments, not regulations.

Appointments - particularly acting appointments - are governed by the Vacancies Reform Act, not the Administrative Procedures Act.

But you are correct that in both cases, the President is required to follow the law, and utterly failed to do so.

1 Like
6

you apparently are completely missing the sarcasm.

the gao is wrong. cases like this have already been adjudicated. and the apa is an affront to our democratic system and anathema to the constitution.

7

No, I got that you were making an attempt at sarcasm.

You failed, and badly. Sarcasm has to make sense in order to have the intended effect.

Your opinion is noted, and discarded.

They sure have. Trumps already lost a few of these cases - as did Obama, Bush, and so on.

See above about your opinion.

8

I remember Trump speaking highly of both Wolf and Cuccinelli. I can believe that he told the powers that be to move them both up. Again we have evidence that this administration does whatever they want with little regard to proper procedures.

9

if you noted the attempt, then it was successful.

the sarcasm made perfect sense. you did mention undoing everything they’ve done did you not? already been adjudicated, their actions stand, if you want to undo them… see APA.

10

and i give less than two ■■■■■ about the gao’s opinions. which are basically meaningless.

11

No, it didn’t - not unless you expect everyone to be coming from the same why are the courts so mean to Trump? perspective that you’re coming from.

…no, I didn’t.

But yes, that is generally the end result, if a Court finds the appointments illegal.

I think you might be a little confused.

12

actually, you are confused.

no, it does not result in everything being undone. those specific actions were being challenged. nothing else he did was undone, nor for any other appointment that was invalidated by a court.

13

Yes. Those actions challenged in the lawsuit were overturned.

Any further lawsuits (with similar fact patterns) about other actions will almost certainly result overturned as well.

14

and absent lawsuits how do you get rid of them… hmmmmmm

15

Absent lawsuits, how do you get rid of what?

Illegally appointed acting secretaries?

Or policies created by those secretaries?

16

policies is what was bought up, and that’s what i referred to. what is that mechanism… hmmmmm

17

Well, the easiest mechanism for changing the policies instituted by an illegally appointed secretary is a lawsuit.

18

wrong, that would be the hardest, most expensive and most time consuming.

you know the answer, go ahead, say it

19

I know that (for some reason) you’re trying to get me to say “the APA”. But that’s just further evidence that you’re not following the plot.

The Administrative Procedures Act governs the Executive branch, not the public.

Anyone can file a suit. Only the President can change regulations via the APA.

20

Under the Vacancies Act, an acting secretary can serve 210 days from when the position was made vacant.
By my count, Wolf has been in the position for 274 days. What am I missing? Thanks.