Law be damned, Trump asserts unilateral control over executive branch, federal service (7 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

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

How do you know that no analysis is involved? I’m not saying there is or there isn’t, so I would like to know.

They have been at it for only 17 days (that's being generous), USAID and the CFPB have a combined workforce of over 10K personnel with a combined budget of over $40M. That's how I KNOW!

 

[el caliente]

My point was there is no "free market" in ag goods. We already have minimum pricing, tarriffs, and usaid type programs that buy up some of the surplus every year.

If you were smart, you would ask WHY?

Why would a country want to ensure its own domestic food production? Why would America see this as a national security issue?

The rice in question, is it being sold at a higher price than any other rice in the area? Why would DOGE go after this Louisiana rice over any other rice? That’s an honest question, the article was behind a paywall, and I’m not looking to pay for that.

 

[DaveXA]

Without knowing the process, any reasonable person will suspend judgment.

If you're that naive, sure.

 

[el caliente]

They have been at it for only 17 days (that's being generous), USAID and the CFPB have a combined workforce of over 10K personnel with a combined budget of over $40M. That's how I KNOW!

DOGE has been talked about since Trump was elected, so they have had far more than 17 days to get things in order.

That’s why I am wondering what this analysis looks like.

 

[el caliente]

If you're that naive, sure.

I wouldn’t say that I am naive, I haven’t trusted the government since I was 16, I just want to know how the sausage is made.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

That’s why I am wondering what this analysis looks like.

ok

 

[efil4]

Yes, I don’t have time to comb through my expenses to see if a $5 or $19 charge has hit my account, so I outsource that work. The app alerts me of expenses that are out of the norm, and requires me to codify the expenses. If I don’t identify the expense then the app will contest the charge. If there is a subscription that I am being charged for that I don’t use, the app will cancel the subscription under my direction.

It makes keeping my finances in order much easier. I don’t mind paying a small fee if the service saves me time.

Is monitoring your finances really ready fire aim? Your family and friends must really love you.

if it takes a good amount of your time to "comb" thru your expenses, chances are high you are doing it all wrong.

You were equating Rocket Money to DOGE. And some unknown subscriptions to governmental agencies.

If you dont see the difference, i can understand why you need Rocket Money to manage your finances.

 

[RobF]

DOGE has been talked about since Trump was elected, so they have had far more than 17 days to get things in order.

That’s why I am wondering what this analysis looks like.

It looks like a bunch of zealous ideologically-driven clowns bludgeoning their way through departments and agencies, going through data and looking for anything, no matter how contrived or misconstrued, they can use to justify slashing and burning.

Obviously.

This isn't even subtle. You have Musk, again, "feeding USAID into the chipper" over a weekend, and declaring "CFBP RIP", you have at worst entirely illegal and at best wildly improper actions being taken long before the understanding of the data and processes involved could possibly have been reached to justify them.

It is so glaringly obvious that's what that is, I remain completely baffled how any one is going, "But surely it's just a technical analysis, I look forward to see the results."

Honestly, I'm starting to think the daftest people here are the ones who didn't - or at least say they didn't - vote for Trump and confuse sitting on the fence and occasionally shouting "both sides!", when it couldn't be any more obvious that this one isn't a 'both sides' thing, with wisdom.

And I say all of that as someone who is very obviously actually independent.

 

[DaveXA]

I wouldn’t say that I am naive, I haven’t trusted the government since I was 16, I just want to know how the sausage is made.

That you haven't trusted the government since you were 16 isn't the win you think it is.

And the fact that you won't criticize Musk and his DOGE minions says even more. If you can't see that what they're doing is not only unprecedented, but also highly questionable, and in all likelihood illegal or unconstitutional.

 

[DaveXA]

if it takes a good amount of your time to "comb" thru your expenses, chances are high you are doing it all wrong.

You were equating Rocket Money to DOGE. And some unknown subscriptions to governmental agencies.

If you dont see the difference, i can understand why you need Rocket Money to manage your finances.

I guess they don't teach critical thinking at Tulane, lol.

 

[Neworleansfan]

The rice in question, is it being sold at a higher price than any other rice in the area? Why would DOGE go after this Louisiana rice over any other rice? That’s an honest question, the article was behind a paywall, and I’m not looking to pay for that.

They are not going after Louisiana rice. Louisiana and Arkansas just happen to be the leading rice producers in the US. Since rice has an indefinite shelf life, it works well for food aid.

 

[efil4]

I guess they don't teach critical thinking at Tulane, lol.

they dont.

 

[TampaJoe]

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.

To you question of whether or not to believe or rely on the statements of politicians not under oath, my answer is I would not totally believe or rely on such statements anymore than I would believe what I read on the internet. I assume most political statements by politicians to be self serving.

That’s why we have courts where lying and misrepresentation may land one in jail.

 

[coldseat]

Your line of thinking is why we are funding a transgender opera in Colombia.

Where are my tickets to this show?!?!

I don't know what you're talking about. I don't spend my days in right wing circles.

If that's even happening, did you need DOGE to tell you that it was happening through illegal means? Could you not see how money was being appropriated through any existing public information? Was there any fraud?

Here are your answers, No, Yes, and No.

 

[TampaJoe]

No. The best option would have been the entire Congress complying with their Constitutional Duties! When POTUS chose to ignore or, as they would say, push his Constitutional Duties to the limit, Congress has an obligation to challenge those actions. Instead, congressional Republicans have ceded their responsibilities and betrayed their oath of office. Hell, it would only take about 8 individuals out of 271 to hold the Executive Branch in check.

We can't even muster up 3% of congressional Republicans to uphold their Constitutional Duties.

Yeah well that never happens. I know you guys go berserk hearing this but neither party has a good track record in that regard. It gets you primaried. It would be nice if congress critters had principles but if they did they probably would have chosen another line of work.

 

[el caliente]

That you haven't trusted the government since you were 16 isn't the win you think it is.

And the fact that you won't criticize Musk and his DOGE minions says even more. If you can't see that what they're doing is not only unprecedented, but also highly questionable, and in all likelihood illegal or unconstitutional.

Your a government employ Dave. No offense but I don’t trust your employer. Lol

Why do I need to criticize Musk when I have already said that I hope that they put the screws to DOGE so that everything is above board? Is being critical of Musk important to gain credibility?

 

[superchuck500]

To you question of whether or not to believe or rely on the statements of politicians not under oath, my answer is I would not totally believe or rely on such statements anymore than I would believe what I read on the internet. I assume most political statements by politicians to be self serving.

That’s why we have courts where lying and misrepresentation may land one in jail.

A disappointingly arid response.

Meanwhile, in the real world where actual things are happening that, along with the things these people say in public reflect intention, state of mind, and viewpoint:

 

[el caliente]

I guess they don't teach critical thinking at Tulane, lol.

No, they just didn’t teach group think. Sorry