and that would be how its done minus a lawsuit, so if you’re interested in that find a government flunkie to jump through some flaming hoops.
which of course brings me tp my previous point.
why should any president be forced to act on the policy and executive orders of his predecessor(s)? where in the constitution are previous presidents empowered to rule residually?don’t we elect them to enact their own policies? why do they need a “good reason”? they shouldn’t need any reason at all. the APA is an affront to democracy and about as unconstitutional as unconstitutional can get.
As I remember Trump has written EO’s that neutered many of Obama’s EO’s. Over the years there has been discussion of how much power can the POTUS have via EO’s. You know, Karl Rove did quite a lot to give the president more power then president’s had previously had. And at the time there was discussion about what would happen with those powers when a Democrat became POTUS. And we saw that with Obama. He took advantage of those powers and perhaps went beyond the scope (i.e. DACA). I think it will come to a head soon. I think that presidential powers need to be more defined.
maybe you should read the OP. The OP mentions having all their decisions made moot. The court case won’t do that. If he didn’t want to discuss how regulations are changed, he should not have put it in the OP.
go find one EO from The Bush admin that was not within the scope of Presidential power. Sorry dude, but its your Obamassiah that blew it up, no-one else. And now, with Roberts ruling on the APA, its written in stone. Presidents can write EO’s which are contrary to the law and the constitution and enact them if the Congress fails to enact the laws they want. Future Presidents who recognize the unconstitutionality may not change them without jumping through several dozen flaming hoops, Constitution and law be damned.
IMO, this is absolutely the worst SCOTUS decision since Roe. Justices who voted in favor of it should be thrown off the court for their lack of adherence to the Constitution and the law,
The GAO did not weigh in on the “consequences” of the tenure of McAleenan, Wolf or Cuccinelli, referring those issues to the DHS Office of Inspector General.The report’s findings are not legally binding, but they are likely to be used in legal challenges to DHS’s actions since Wolf took over as acting head of the agency last November.
"We wholeheartedly disagree with the GAO’s baseless report and plan to issue a formal response to this shortly," a DHS spokesperson said in a statement.
