Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 3

[theprestige]

Congress (both houses) can change the law so that a President would not be able to fire an agency IG unilaterally.

Obviously there's a whole other discussion about whether they would, but they absolutely can do it (assuming it was signed or the veto overridden).

There's also a whole other discussion about whether the Legislature has constitutional authority to dictate Executive staffing decisions in this way. The constitution is pretty clear about which Executive jobs require Legislative "advice and consent". All three branches of government are pretty jealous of their constitutional privileges, and have historically rejected attempts to take them away.

I doubt any president would agree to comply with a law that prohibited him from making hiring and firing decisions within the Executive branch. It would require a Supreme Court ruling, at the very least.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

There's also a whole other discussion about whether the Legislature has constitutional authority to dictate Executive staffing decisions in this way. The constitution is pretty clear about which Executive jobs require Legislative "advice and consent". All three branches of government are pretty jealous of their constitutional privileges, and have historically rejected attempts to take them away.

I doubt any president would agree to comply with a law that prohibited him from making hiring and firing decisions within the Executive branch. It would require a Supreme Court ruling, at the very least.

Requiring advice and consent to fill some positions doesn't mean that requirement can't exist for other positions. In fact that are a lot of top postings that require advice and consent that are not named in the Constitution and did not exist until some 100+ years after it was written, proposed, and/or ratified.

Requiring advice and consent to fill some positions doesn't mean that no restrictions whatsoever can exist on firings.

The current standoff is such that Congress has strict guidelines on what circumstances the heads of agencies and commissions may be removed under. This means the executive can do so, but is inherently making a very hostile claim against the ousted individual that would almost certainly draw the administration into a potentially high-profile case of a politically motivated sacking and smear job.

The real hard limit is that Congress can't retain full, autonomous control of positions it creates. It is entirely possible that some agencies could have a clause where a firing of an office holder triggers (or allows the fired individual to appeal for) a Congressional review that can uphold or overturn it.

Although the real problem is that most of the rules for retaining some oversight are all predicated on the idea that the President doesn't want the office to be empty and without leadership, funding, etc. That creates a real problem when grappling with an ideology that wants to cripple social services.

 

[theprestige]

Requiring advice and consent to fill some positions doesn't mean that requirement can't exist for other positions. In fact that are a lot of top postings that require advice and consent that are not named in the Constitution and did not exist until some 100+ years after it was written, proposed, and/or ratified.

Can you give some examples?

Requiring advice and consent to fill some positions doesn't mean that no restrictions whatsoever can exist on firings.

It does mean that new restrictions have to have some sort of constitutional basis. The Senate can't simply say, "because we're constitutionally authorized to approve Cabinet nominees, we're also authorized to approve any and all Executive branch employees."

And I doubt Congress can simply pass a law making it so.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Can you give some examples?

Many term-limited positions cannot be removed once confirmed. Fed chair, for example.

A Special Counsel cannot be unilaterally fired by the President (this requires a weasely, weak-willed AG to go along).

EPA and NRC and endless other alphabet soup agencies have various verbiage about what cause of action may allow a firing. As I said, that makes the firing much more incendiary (which mattered once, in a bygone era). Point still remains, the law says the President can't just do it whimsically, there are rules about the hows and whys of it.

It does mean that new restrictions have to have some sort of constitutional basis. The Senate can't simply say, "because we're constitutionally authorized to approve Cabinet nominees, we're also authorized to approve any and all Executive branch employees."

And I doubt Congress can simply pass a law making it so.

I'm not sure why you think that the Constitution not specifically forbidding or requiring a thing means the Constitution somehow blocks that thing.

The laws that are in place now are technically unconstitutional by your reasoning.

We can disagree on what the rules "should" be all we want, but to reject that there even can be any rules is absurd on its face.

If you wish to maintain that posture, then there's nothing left to discuss because it will only end with "we can do nothing." Pointless conversation.

 

[dann]

Sen. Susan Collins on saying she'll vote to acquit Trump:

BWAAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Apparently Collins has never met Trump.

The Lincoln Project (Aug. 4, 2020):
President Trump officially endorses Susan Collins

 

[Ziggurat]

The Lincoln Project

My favorite thing about them: John Weaver, one of their founders, was a registered foreign agent for Russia.

 

[JoeMorgue]

My favorite thing about them: John Weaver, one of their founders, was a registered foreign agent for Russia.

So you'll vote for them for President then?

 

[Ziggurat]

The real hard limit is that Congress can't retain full, autonomous control of positions it creates. It is entirely possible that some agencies could have a clause where a firing of an office holder triggers (or allows the fired individual to appeal for) a Congressional review that can uphold or overturn it.

I don't think that's true. I don't think Congress is constitutionally capable of reviewing any firing decisions in the sense you mean. They can (and have) passed laws that dictate the terms under which an executive branch firing can happen (ie, it may require "just cause", etc.), but if such a firing is contested, it goes through the courts, NOT congress, because congress has no role in enforcing laws. And oversight is distinct from enforcement.

 

[Ziggurat]

So you'll vote for them for President then?

Your lamest rule of so yet.

 

[thaiboxerken]

So you'll vote for them for President then?

Nah, he just won't care if the person is a Russian agent.

 

[Segnosaur]

My favorite thing about them: John Weaver, one of their founders, was a registered foreign agent for Russia.

So you'll vote for them for President then?

Don't be silly... He won't support them if they have registered agents. Only if those agents are acting in secret. (You know, like those in the Trump administration)


Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk

 

[JoeMorgue]

Your lamest rule of so yet.

I love how the Trumpers have been reduced to making up rules that don't exist and claiming arguments against their God-king break them as a way to try and save face.

 

[Ziggurat]

I love how the Trumpers have been reduced to making up rules that don't exist and claiming arguments against their God-king break them as a way to try and save face.

You're desperately hanging on to a conspiracy theory that collapsed long ago, and you think you are in a position to lecture me about saving face? You are hypocrisy incarnate.

 

[Belz...]

Which conspiracy theory collapsed? Certainly not the Russia-TrumpAdmin one. Acquittal in the Senate was a given; it had no relation to the truth of the accusations.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You're desperately hanging on to a conspiracy theory that collapsed long ago, and you think you are in a position to lecture me about saving face? You are hypocrisy incarnate.

"Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

My favorite thing about them: John Weaver, one of their founders, was a registered foreign agent for Russia.

This is wonderful. It means Russia has switched sides. They've had enough of the mentally ill guy that hangs on Putin's leg when he visits.

 

[Ziggurat]

This is wonderful. It means Russia has switched sides.

The rationalizations you have to go through to keep your conspiracy theory alive are a sight to behold.

 

[Belz...]

The rationalizations you have to go through to keep your conspiracy theory alive are a sight to behold.

Again: what conspiracy theory?

 

[kookbreaker]

Did BrooklynBaby hack Ziggurat's account?

 

[Belz...]

It's a fact that the Russian state has interfered with the presidential elections in 2016. It's a fact that a suspiciously disproportionate number of contacts existed between people directly related to Trump and his campaign and Russian assets, which raises important questions. Trump himself has a long history of using his properties to help Russian oligarchs and mobsters launder money extracted from the motherland, seems to have had a political epiphany on his first trip to Russia in the 80s, and fawns over Putin like a schoolboy in puberty. Add to that a number of other odd facts, like the involvement of Deutschebank and Trump's ties to Russian markets, and it's not really a conspiracy theory that the Trump campaign had some sort of coordination with the Russian state during the elections; it's instead a very plausible scenario.

Now, maybe it turns out to be false, but it's nothing like a conspiracy theory.