Law be damned, Trump asserts unilateral control over executive branch, federal service (5 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

Following the Project 2025 playbook, in the last week, Trump and his newly installed loyalists have moved to (1) dismiss federal officials deemed unreliable to do his bidding (including 17 inspectors general) - many of which have protections from arbitrary dismissal, (2) freeze all science and public health activity until he can wrest full control, (3) freeze all federal assistance and grant activity deemed inconsistent with Trump's agenda, and (4) moved to terminate all federal employee telework and DEI programs.

The problem is much of this is controlled by federal law and not subject to sudden and complete change by the president through executive order. Most notably is the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 that simply codifies what is the constitutional allocation of resources where Congress appropriates money to the executive branch for a specific purpose, the executive branch must carry out that statutory purpose. This is indeed a constitutional crisis and even if Congress abdicates to Trump by acquiescing, the courts must still apply the law - or rule it unconstitutional.

And meanwhile the architect of much of this unlawful action is Russell Vought, Trump’s OMB nominee who the Senate appears ready to confirm.

120. The Impoundment Crisis of 2025

The Trump administration's Monday spending freeze is likely to provoke a crisis over the constitutionality of "impoundment"—one that the justices could well have to resolve *very* soon.

www.stevevladeck.com

 

[CoolBrees]

In administrative law parlance, we call that "arbitrary and capricious".

In commercial construction we call this "bullshirt"

 

[MT15]

So DOGE is read only and not changing things you say?

 

[fooferdoggie]

So DOGE is read only and not changing things you say?

the idiots who think this will benefit them deserve to get ripped off. Republicans really wanted this its amazing how they will sacrifice anything make corporations even more powerful and less accountable.

 

[Sendai]

“Today a delegation of US Representatives attempted to go into the US Dept of Education through the public entrance and were denied entry by a private security firm.”

“The source told The Hill the individual blocking the door and denying members entry was with the Office of Security, Facilities and Logistics Services at the Department of Education.” So not private security.


What I found weird was the Department of Homeland Security agents that were standing behind the closed door.

Oh,yeah
“Tom Krause, chief executive at Cloud Software Group who Elon Musk’s DOGE installed at Treasury last month, has been named the financial assistant secretary of the Treasury Department, making him the bureaucrat in charge of the government’s largest payment system, per The Washington Post.” so he is an employee.

 

[TampaJoe]

You keep saying this like it's some meaningful or deep point and like it gives justification for anything Musk is doing. It isn't and it doesn't.

Taking control of the payment system doesn't do anything to "take a look at government spending". All it does is allow Musk to committ unauthorized and illegal actions by a person with a huge conflict of interest. They aren't uncovering any fraud in the payment system. We already have many apparatus in government that do that effectively. They are illegally stopping payments (and closing down government department) that have been approved by both congressional and presidential authority.

If they want to stop waste in government spending, the only way to do that legally is through congressional and executive action by passing bills through congress. I mean, as long as we still live in a Democratic Republic. I know the GOP and its voters want something else, but we're still supposed to be following the constitution.

I can’t speak for others but I have not condoned or advocating anything outside the constitution or the law. If there is evidence to show this is being done in violation of the constitution or the law, then our democratic republic has legal constitutional processes in place to address such issues. I suggest the folks leveling accusations available themselves of those processes.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

“The source told The Hill the individual blocking the door and denying members entry was with the Office of Security, Facilities and Logistics Services at the Department of Education.” So not private security.


What I found weird was the Department of Homeland Security agents that were standing behind the closed door.

Oh,yeah
“Tom Krause, chief executive at Cloud Software Group who Elon Musk’s DOGE installed at Treasury last month, has been named the financial assistant secretary of the Treasury Department, making him the bureaucrat in charge of the government’s largest payment system, per The Washington Post.” so he is an employee.

But, the fact that the LAWMAKERS requested an emergency meeting, doesn't concern you is telling.

A source familiar with the situation said the lawmakers went to the department after sending a letter Wednesday night requesting an emergency meeting with the acting Education secretary over those reports.

The Democratic lawmakers wanted a meeting within 24 hours and decided to show up to the building Friday morning when they had not heard back from the agency by Thursday night...The lawmakers were not given a reason as to why they were not allowed to enter the building and left after a while.

Strange, the Democratic lawmakers were practicing Democracy and their efforts were thwarted.

“They’ve called armed federal officers to the scene. We aren’t dangerous. We are here to represent our people. To defend public education. This is an authoritarian regime. You cannot block members of Congress from entering the Department of Education,” Frost said in another post on X.

Democrats on Thursday were also denied entry to the Environmental Protection Agency after attempting to meet with DOGE officials and the EPA administrator.

“The protest was organized by members of Congress who were exercising their First Amendment rights, which they are at liberty to do. They did not have any scheduled appointments, and the protest has since ended,” a Department of Education spokesperson said.

Do you find it, at least, a little bit curious that the DoED spokesman described the Democratic lawmakers actions as a protest?