Ever tried getting the bureaucracy to acknowledge your rights in practice and do the things they're charged with doing when they've decided you're on the "wrong" side? Yes, I believe "my team" is winning; I haven't lost rights (yet), I've gained them. I worry about the pendulum swinging too far, I wish it hadn't come to this, but there's a whole class of people that have been shamelessly partisan for years, and even now are unrepentant and contemptuous of the people they're supposed to be serving, and that system has shown itself to be unwilling to be reformed. I had hoped that the first Trump presidency would be a wake-up call, that the Dems would finally remember they need to at least pretend to care about the working class, but instead we got more of the same. So here we are.
Wait, are you claiming that an administration currently being advised if not outright directed by the wealthiest man in the world is going to guarantee justice for the working class? Do you realize how that sounds?
Do you think massively cutting government grants that go to all kinds of social services in order to pay for 4.5T in tax cuts that mainly go to the wealthy, is going to help the working class?
Moreover, inter-term government workers are hired to be explicitly non-partisan. You want them to be non-partisan in order to guarantee continuity of government between administrations and to enforce the law as determined by the courts, non-politically. This is what actually guarantees your rights under the constitution. The minute you introduce political bias into this process is when you begin to deviate from the rule of law and actually abridge peoples’ rights.
And I’m sorry, but your “team” is going to have to face a reckoning if they continue to take power unconstitutionally. That abridges my rights as a citizen of the republic and forfeits their mandate to rule. We will all have the moral right and duty to use force if necessary against any politician who upholds this illiberal order. I hope you like violence, because that’s what you’re asking for.
> Wait, are you claiming that an administration currently being advised if not outright directed by the wealthiest man in the world is going to guarantee justice for the working class? Do you realize how that sounds?
Wealth is not the same as class.
> Do you think massively cutting government grants that go to all kinds of social services in order to pay for 4.5T in tax cuts that mainly go to the wealthy, is going to help the working class?
Yes. I'd've preferred raising the minimum wage or actual proper public-funded healthcare, but apparently there's no party you can vote for that will make a serious effort to do those. Cutting a bunch of PMC email jobs will at least reduce competition for housing, and while there are some well-intentioned individuals at the low levels of those agencies, overall they're often useless or even counterproductive.
> inter-term government workers are hired to be explicitly non-partisan. You want them to be non-partisan in order to guarantee continuity of government between administrations and to enforce the law as determined by the courts, non-politically. This is what actually guarantees your rights under the constitution. The minute you introduce political bias into this process is when you begin to deviate from the rule of law and actually abridge peoples’ rights.
Right, and this is where your "team" has been gradually going astray for decades, and what has lead us to this point.
> And I’m sorry, but your “team” is going to have to face a reckoning if they continue to take power unconstitutionally. That abridges my rights as a citizen of the republic and forfeits their mandate to rule. We will all have the moral right and duty to use force if necessary against any politician who upholds this illiberal order. I hope you like violence, because that’s what you’re asking for.
Lol. Your "team" is all about non-partisanship and rule of law as long as things are going your way, and then the moment the people elect someone who actually tries to implement the policies he stood on, it's time to declare him illegitimate and threaten violence. I fully believe you have the temerity, but you don't have the balls.
See, what’s nice about the rule of law is that if a bureaucrat actually infringes on your rights then you can sue the government to correct it. Under this new arrangement, that’s no longer possible because the executive branch has declared itself solely responsible for interpreting the law and constitution — not Congress and not the Supreme Court. So if you were worried about your rights being infringed by bureaucrats before, then you’re fucked.
And no, I’m sorry, but grossly violating the constitutional foundation of this country going back to 1880 is not a matter of just “implementing policies”. We can do all that through acts of Congress already. Don’t like it? Then don’t vote for a party that’s made it their mission to obstruct all legislative progress.
What you’re trying justify here is the elimination of the balance of powers itself—the very thing that keeps this country free. If your family has multiple generations in this country then you are disgracing their legacy as Americans. One of us is an actual patriot willing to take a risk and defend both of us against tyranny (and you should be grateful that there are millions more with that intention). The other just traded away his own liberty to a wannabe tyrant, like a coward. So step out of the way.
> See, what’s nice about the rule of law is that if a bureaucrat actually infringes on your rights then you can sue the government to correct it. Under this new arrangement, that’s no longer possible because the executive branch has declared itself solely responsible for interpreting the law and constitution — not Congress and not the Supreme Court. So if you were worried about your rights being infringed by bureaucrats before, then you’re fucked.
No, this changes nothing about the relationship between the branches. The judicial and legislative branches still have exactly the same roles and responsibilities they've always had. Individuals can still sue and Congress can still impeach. There was never supposed to be a secret fourth branch of bureaucrats accountable to no-one; bureaucrats in the executive were always supposed to be accountable within the executive, topping out at the President. And now they are.
> If your family has multiple generations in this country then you are disgracing their legacy as Americans.
Right back at you. How many generations of your ancestors do you think would say that random staffers in NOAA or MBDA or BLS or BoIE or MSHA should be deciding they know better than the President and the Attorney General and making up their own interpretations of the law to follow instead?
> One of us is an actual patriot willing to take a risk and defend both of us against tyranny (and you should be grateful that there are millions more like me).
>No, this changes nothing about the relationship between the branches. The judicial and legislative branches still have exactly the same roles and responsibilities they've always had.
That's blatantly false. You need to educate yourself on how our constitutional order actually works and how this EO attempts to claim illegitimate power.
>deciding they know better than the President and the Attorney General and making up their own interpretations of the law to follow instead?
Also false. The courts interpret the law and dictate what is legal to the bureaucrats. Under that executive order, the president -- rather than the courts -- interprets the law, which clearly violates separation of powers. You have thrice ignored this most basic fact.
If you're being truthful, then you are grossly misinformed. If you are not, then you're opposed to a free America. Either way this needs to be explained to anyone else reading this thread.
>Real internet tough guy huh.
Yep, it's all a big joke until you find yourself sitting in federal prison because you said something the president didn't like. That's where ignoring the courts will take us.
Your own link doesn't back up your claims. There is no sound constitutional or even legal basis for the concept of an independent regulatory agency, and to the extent that they exist they do exactly the thing you claim to be concerned about - combining legislative and executive power in the same entity, with all the accountability problems that implies. (The likes of the SEC even ran their own courts and judges as well, although the supreme court has thankfully put a stop to most of that now). Making it clear that executive agencies are part of the executive and accountable to the executive is a positive step.
The judicial branch doesn't interpret the law prospectively, it rules on cases and controversies. This EO doesn't affect court rulings, it's about interpretation as done by (from your own link) "agency lawyers, inspectors general, and independent counsel". It puts those people in the executive hierarchy and makes them accountable to someone.
>It puts those people in the executive hierarchy and makes them accountable to someone.
Again, that executive hierarchy has always been accountable to the courts.
Think about the difference between consulting independent agency lawyers vs the attorney general before taking action. What does that look like in practice? The attorney general and/or office of the president can now unilaterally decide that something grossly unconstitutional (e.g., eliminating birthright citizenship) is actually "legal" and instruct all federal employees to enact it on that basis. We then have to wait for courts to intervene, possibly for it to reach the supreme court, which could take a long time. In that time, the entire apparatus of the federal government would be engaged in gross violations of its citizens rights. Whereas before, the interpretation of the law would have been distributed across all the agencies, making it much harder to turn them toward nefarious ends.
Now let's go one step farther. Trump has already appointed cronies loyal to him to the federal agencies, so they won't go against him under any circumstance. As more of the federal workforce is replaced with loyal cronies (and that's indeed part of Project 2025), fewer and fewer barriers will stand in the way of complete dictatorship. Attacking the power of independent agencies is the first concrete step to making that happen.
> The attorney general and/or office of the president can now unilaterally decide that something grossly unconstitutional (e.g., eliminating birthright citizenship) is actually "legal" and instruct all federal employees to enact it on that basis. We then have to wait for courts to intervene, possibly for it to reach the supreme court, which could take a long time.
If the president ordered something actually grossly unconstitutional (and reversing Wong Kim Ark, a decision that the Supreme Court itself was split on, is hardly a good example of that), it would be the senate's duty to impeach.
The legal system is indeed overly slow to come down on federal agencies that do the wrong thing. If your side is onboard with improving that, that's all to the good.
> Whereas before, the interpretation of the law would have been distributed across all the agencies, making it much harder to turn them toward nefarious ends.
Unaccountability cuts both ways. Yes, if each agency is doing its own interpretation of the law, that makes it harder for elected officials to control what those agencies do. I don't see that as a good thing.
>Yes, if each agency is doing its own interpretation of the law, that makes it harder for elected officials to control what those agencies do. I don't see that as a good thing.
Do you trust Congress to write clear and unequivocal laws? If so, there should be no issue in interpreting them. When there have been issues, the courts come in. This has always been a perfectly reasonable way to run the federal government. Even if you think they could be better aligned with the popular will, risking an all-out dictatorship is not the way to accomplish that.
