Law be damned, Trump asserts unilateral control over executive branch, federal service (18 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

 

[MT15]

My interest is in the resulting analysis.

Who is doing the analysis?

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Who is doing the analysis?

There is no analysis, they are looking for anything they can convert into a soundbite.

 

[MT15]

There is no analysis, they are looking for anything they can convert into a soundbite.

I know that, I want to know who Sendai thinks is doing the analysis.

 

[MT15]

seeing lots of reports online of federal payments not being made to states and cities still. Also farmers and small companies.

Our Soc Sec deposit is due to be made this Wednesday, and by now I can usually see it in my bank’s app as “pending”, but it’s not there yet.

One lady online said her payment already was showing up as “pending” to her account. Not ours yet.

I’m a little nervous about it, to be honest.

Today, our social security payments show pending. Due tomorrow. I am relieved.

 

[TampaJoe]

That move also ostensibly cancels the recent move from the Biden administration to make medical debt not impact credit reports and scores. The rule was held up by litigation but I think we can expect Trump/Musk/Vought will cancel it outright.

Just a massive "fork you!" to a significant Trump constituency.

From Websters

“2 : a methodical examination and review”

Definition of AUDIT

a formal examination of an organization's or individual's accounts or financial situation; the final report of an audit; a methodical examination and review… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

The company was a very strong and healthy enterprise. And we did these audits to keep it that way.

People often use the word “audit” rather loosely. Not every review of financial data is an audit.

 

[efil4]

This is a thing that drives me nuts. Why would you trust DOGE? Musk has a huge conflict of interest, and no experience with this sort of thing at all. He's already released outright falsehoods.... and people are still saying, "I just want to see what he'll find"?

For all the angst many have for the level of distrust of governmental institutions, they simply moved that trust over to Elon/Trump/DOGE.

and they will be woefully misled, yet again.

Its pure confirmation bias at this point. As DOGE et al keep pumping out the "clickbait", folks can continue to a) See? Waste! and b) support them. With zero regard to what the ramifications/consequences will be.

 

[MT15]

Does DOGE have the authority to legally do anything it's doing?

So you're comparing the government to your personal financial situation and DOGE to Rocket Money? That's about the type of simplistic and erroneous thinking I would expect from anybody supporting Musk takeover of the government.

It really doesn’t speak well for his alma mater, wonder if he went to a “shirtty college”?

 

[TampaJoe]

They have no authority but they did it anyway. Do you think that's a problem?

It’s in the courts. I’m sure they will get the facts and decide accordingly what is or is not legal. We don’t know the process so how do we know it is authorized or illegal?

 

[superchuck500]

People often use the word “audit” rather loosely. Not every review of financial data is an audit.

Yeah, that's fair - but to claim this team of Musk and a a handful of 20-something software engineers are going agency by agency, maybe a day or so at each, performing some kind of in-depth audit without any real basis of knowing what their doing is still flimsy.

There could be some forms of systems audits that are being done and can be done quickly if the objectives are all computerized but there's no reason to think that's all that is happening. They have shut down systems, locked out systems, and closed offices . . . without anyone ever explaining what they're doing. What is the protocol? What is the criteria of this "audit"? What are the metrics they are seeking, discovering, and then acted on? What software are they using and how did they get it?

This isn't a private business - it's the federal government. The White House has said it's all on the up and up but has given no substance to that defense.

 

[MT15]

It’s in the courts. I’m sure they will get the facts and decide accordingly what is or is not legal. We don’t know the process so how do we know it is authorized or illegal?

Because the Executive can’t shut down agencies that were created and authorized and funded by the Legislative? That would be a good way to start thinking about it.

 

[superchuck500]

It’s in the courts. I’m sure they will get the facts and decide accordingly what is or is not legal. We don’t know the process so how do we know it is authorized or illegal?

What the "process" is is only half of the story - the other half is what it impacts and how. That we can tell, already, whether it's legal or not to make those impacts. For example, the executive branch cannot eliminate an office created by statute. The executive branch cannot impound funds appropriated by Congress for a specific purpose.

If they're doing something they're categorically not authorized to do, that's enough to say it's unlawful. We don't have to wait for them to tell us how they did it.

 

[superchuck500]

I don’t think any of us went to the polls and voted yes on that.

We did actually.

You can more about the process here:

The 1st Article of the U.S. Constitution

SECTION. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

constitutioncenter.org

 

[superchuck500]

Judge Bates at DDC is a long-time conservative/Republican lawyer and judge. He was a federal criminal prosecutor for almost two decades, serving as deputy special counsel on the Whitewater investigation and later for the Ken Starr investigation of Bill Clinton. Bush appointed him district judge. Justice Roberts appointed him to FISA for a four-year term and he is now a senior judge at DDC.

Of course none of that will matter to Trump and Elon - just another liberal activist judge.

 

[DaveXA]

I really hope that DOGE does some digging into the DoD. That’s when the real whining and moaning will begin.

An audit is already planned. Supposed to happen in the next couple of years. I can't say specifics, but suffice to say, some agencies within DOD are well aware and are preparing for this audit. It's certainly needed and I think will help the agency better deploy resources.

And DOGE trying to do whatever it is they do in DOD would be like beating an iceberg with a toothpick.

 

[J-DONK]

Because the Executive can’t shut down agencies that were created and authorized and funded by the Legislative? That would be a good way to start thinking about it.

I still can't understand why conseratives are defending this. They can't even formulate a real defense for it.

Again, Republicans have complete control of the government. They can make all of these changes via Congress passing bills, and the president signing them into law. This is elementary school civics here.

 

[TampaJoe]

What the "process" is is only half of the story - the other half is what it impacts and how. That we can tell, already, whether it's legal or not to make those impacts. For example, the executive branch cannot eliminate an office created by statute. The executive branch cannot impound funds appropriated by Congress for a specific purpose.

If they're doing something they're categorically not authorized to do, that's enough to say it's unlawful. We don't have to wait for them to tell us how they did it.

The question of the legality of whether the administration can or cannot impact those processes is a question of law. It’s not always black and white. It’s not always clear. So the court will gather the appropriate facts and make that determination.

That is the best option available to the minority party at this time.

 

[superchuck500]

The question of the legality of whether the administration can or cannot impact those processes is a question of law. It’s not always black and white. It’s not always clear. So the court will gather the appropriate facts and make that determination.

That is the best option available to the minority party at this time.

Oh that has already begun to happen - there have been at least seven injunctions by my count and Musk’s reaction to it has been to decry it as a “judicial coup”. Other Trumpists have urged the White House to disregard these cases, the injunctions, and proceed. In fact, there is evidence that many of the payment freezes remain in place even days after federal courts have ordered the freezes to be lifted pending additional review.

I think I can gather from your posts that you support the legal process and believe, as I think is appropriate in the American constitutional system, that the courts decide what is lawful. Yet here, in reacting at the first genuine challenge to the lawfulness of what they're doing, Musk is aiming to spur public sentiment against the legal process - accusing the judges of literally trying to overthrow the government - while appearing to disregard the rulings at this point.

So I think it's fair to ask and I hope you will answer: if this is their posture now, utterly disdainful of the legal process, what basis to we have to believe that anything they're doing is lawful?

They won't tell us what they're doing so we're just supposed to have faith . . . and yet they don't otherwise seem to care about whether the courts find it legal. It's hardly a record on which to believe in their intentions.

 

[el caliente]

Just so we understand what you are asking:

Should it be the government's job to help it's citizens obtain an education, and housing?

Yes.

Yes. Should the people be on the hook for people deciding to go to crap colleges (Trump University, etc.), or buy home when inventory is on the side of the seller?

I don’t think so.