The Trump Cabinet and key post thread (4 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

Surely to be a clown show. We know that RFK certainly thinks he’s getting nominated for HHS, which includes FDA.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

If that is indeed true as you claim, it is a violation of DoD Policy. I believe I have said as much multiple times.

Simply a violation of DoD policy, you say? This DoD policy designates SecDef as a "further restricted employee." What does the Hatch Act say about further restricted employees?

 

[TampaJoe]

Does t

Simply a violation of DoD policy, you say? This DoD policy designates SecDef as a "further restricted employee." What does the Hatch Act say about further restricted employees?

Does the Hatch Act specify SecDef as further restricted? Does the Hatch Act specify who can designate someone as further restricted?

 

[TampaJoe]

Simply a violation of DoD policy, you say? This DoD policy designates SecDef as a "further restricted employee." What does the Hatch Act say about further restricted employees?

No, the Hatch Act does not provide general administrative agencies with the authority to unilaterally designate which of their employees are "further restricted."
The designation of further restricted employees is strictly defined and limited by the statute itself. Under the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 7321-7326) and its associated regulations (5 C.F.R. Part 734), only specific employees are statutorily deemed further restricted.

It goes further to say this designation may be extended in certain departments such as Defense as part of their administrative policy.

So it appears that what you describe would be an administrative violation of DoD policy.

Do you have any case work or statutory citations to the contrary?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Does t

Does the Hatch Act specify SecDef as further restricted? Does the Hatch Act specify who can designate someone as further restricted?

No, the Hatch Act does not provide general administrative agencies with the authority to unilaterally designate which of their employees are "further restricted."
The designation of further restricted employees is strictly defined and limited by the statute itself. Under the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 7321-7326) and its associated regulations (5 C.F.R. Part 734), only specific employees are statutorily deemed further restricted.

It goes further to say this designation may be extended in certain departments such as Defense as part of their administrative policy.

So it appears that what you describe would be an administrative violation of DoD policy.

Do you have any case work or statutory citations to the contrary?

DoD policy says that SecDef is a further restricted employee, which I have provided a reference for. Can you show me where in the Hatch Act it says that DoD does not have the authority to do this?

 

[TampaJoe]

DoD policy says that SecDef is a further restricted employee, which I have provided a reference for. Can you show me where in the Hatch Act it says that DoD does not have the authority to do this?

I can tell you there is nothing in the legislation that provides that authority. Feel free to correct me by providing a cite from the legislation. This tracks with Sendai’s posts from the special council.

Legally I believe that authority must exist in the legislation. The act itself calls out who is considered “further restricted” and it does contain language that would indicate that departments in the government have the authority to extend coverage under the act to additional designees.

But as you mentioned, the DoD does have the authority to apply those restrictions administratively to its employees thru DoD policy. So a violation by the SecDef would be a violation of DoD policy as previously stated. So the question then becomes does SecDef have the authority to exempt himself from said policy? I don’t have an answer for that.

If you have more authoritative legal cites than please attach.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I can tell you there is nothing in the legislation that provides that authority. Feel free to correct me by providing a cite from the legislation. This tracks with Sendai’s posts from the special council.

Legally I believe that authority must exist in the legislation. The act itself calls out who is considered “further restricted” and it does contain language that would indicate that departments in the government have the authority to extend coverage under the act to additional designees.

But as you mentioned, the DoD does have the authority to apply those restrictions administratively to its employees thru DoD policy. So a violation by the SecDef would be a violation of DoD policy as previously stated. So the question then becomes does SecDef have the authority to exempt himself from said policy? I don’t have an answer for that.

If you have more authoritative legal cites than please attach.

For sure.

"Delegation of Authority
Memorandum of President of the United States, Oct. 27, 1994, 59 F.R. 54515, provided:

Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense

Pursuant to authority vested in me as the Chief Executive Officer of the United States, and consistent with the provisions of the Hatch Act Reform Amendment regulations, 5 CFR 734.104, and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I delegate to you the authority to limit the political activities of political appointees of the Department of Defense, including Presidential appointees, Presidential appointees with Senate confirmation, noncareer SES appointees, and Schedule C appointees.

You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

William J. Clinton."

You could always argue that SecDef could just stop following the policy since the power to limit activity was delegated to that position. To that, I would ask two questions:

1. Did he do that/is it something he can just wave his hand and make happen?

2. If so- and this goes back to MT's position- don't you agree that the politicization of the military is a terrible idea?

U.S.C. Title 5 - GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES

 

[TampaJoe]

For sure.

"Delegation of Authority
Memorandum of President of the United States, Oct. 27, 1994, 59 F.R. 54515, provided:

Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense

Pursuant to authority vested in me as the Chief Executive Officer of the United States, and consistent with the provisions of the Hatch Act Reform Amendment regulations, 5 CFR 734.104, and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I delegate to you the authority to limit the political activities of political appointees of the Department of Defense, including Presidential appointees, Presidential appointees with Senate confirmation, noncareer SES appointees, and Schedule C appointees.

You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

William J. Clinton."

You could always argue that SecDef could just stop following the policy since the power to limit activity was delegated to that position. To that, I would ask two questions:

1. Did he do that/is it something he can just wave his hand and make happen?

2. If so- and this goes back to MT's position- don't you agree that the politicization of the military is a terrible idea?

U.S.C. Title 5 - GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES

As to question number 1, I already said I don’t have the answer to that question.

As to question number 2, I don’t think it is a good idea to politicize government institutions. I have also stated that numerous times.

But this discussion is about whether the DoD has the authority to alter the Hatch Act. They do not. The DoD has the authority to set DoD policy. Nothing you have posted changes that. If Hegseth violated anything, it is DoD policy.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

As to question number 1, I already said I don’t have the answer to that question.

As to question number 2, I don’t think it is a good idea to politicize government institutions. I have also stated that numerous times.

But this discussion is about whether the DoD has the authority to alter the Hatch Act. They do not. The DoD has the authority to set DoD policy. Nothing you have posted changes that. If Hegseth violated anything, it is DoD policy.

Stop this strawman bullshirt, Joe. It's pathetic. Nobody said DoD was altering the Hatch Act. What I quoted and linked for you is the legal authority for DoD (as well as two other memoranda aimed at DoJ and State Department) to "limit the political activities of political appointees" in a manner that is "consistent with the provisions of the Hatch Act Reform Amendment regulations."

This is a directive from the sitting president (at the time) that allows all three of these departments to decide whether or not certain employees are subject to the Hatch Act. DoD used that authority to subject SecDef and certain other civilian employees to the Hatch Act.

I really don't know how to explain this any more simply. Your failure to comprehend doesn't make you right.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

As to question number 1, I already said I don’t have the answer to that question.

As to question number 2, I don’t think it is a good idea to politicize government institutions. I have also stated that numerous times.

But this discussion is about whether the DoD has the authority to alter the Hatch Act. They do not. The DoD has the authority to set DoD policy. Nothing you have posted changes that. If Hegseth violated anything, it is DoD policy.

If you don't think it's a good idea to politicize government institutions, why are you spending so much time downplaying what Hegseth did?

 

[TampaJoe]

Stop this strawman bullshirt, Joe. It's pathetic. Nobody said DoD was altering the Hatch Act. What I quoted and linked for you is the legal authority for DoD (as well as two other memoranda aimed at DoJ and State Department) to "limit the political activities of political appointees" in a manner that is "consistent with the provisions of the Hatch Act Reform Amendment regulations."

This is a directive from the sitting president (at the time) that allows all three of these departments to decide whether or not certain employees are subject to the Hatch Act. DoD used that authority to subject SecDef and certain other civilian employees to the Hatch Act.

I really don't know how to explain this any more simply. Your failure to comprehend doesn't make you right.

You don’t need to explain. I clearly stated my position on this matter that is consistent with the law and DoD policy. It is not a strawman. It is simply the law as written. I never said the DoD doesn’t have the legal authority to set policy for its employees. Many times.

 

[TampaJoe]

If you don't think it's a good idea to politicize government institutions, why are you spending so much time downplaying what Hegseth did?

I haven’t downplayed anything. I merely stated that it isn’t a violation of the Hatch act but rather a violation of DoD policy. It is what it is.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I haven’t downplayed anything. I merely stated that it isn’t a violation of the Hatch act but rather a violation of DoD policy. It is what it is.

Sure, Jan.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

You don’t need to explain. I clearly stated my position on this matter that is consistent with the law and DoD policy. It is not a strawman. It is simply the law as written. I never said the DoD doesn’t have the legal authority to set policy for its employees. Many times.

And I showed you where you were wrong. The Memorandum issued by Clinton says that DoD has the authority to designate certain civilian employees as further restricted under the Hatch Act. DoD did so. You see 1 and 1 in front of you, but you cannot add to 2.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Sure, Jan.

Fixed

Required by law to post the gif

Do better

 

[TampaJoe]

And I showed you where you were wrong. The Memorandum issued by Clinton says that DoD has the authority to designate certain civilian employees as further restricted under the Hatch Act. DoD did so. You see 1 and 1 in front of you, but you cannot add to 2.

Potus doesn’t have the legal authority to unilaterally amend law as written unless provisions are made in the law to permit him to do so. He can authorize DoD to write its policy to mirror the law.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Fixed

Required by law to post the gif

Do better

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Potus doesn’t have the legal authority to unilaterally amend law as written unless provisions are made in the law to permit him to do so. He can authorize DoD to write its policy to mirror the law.

He didn't amend the law. He allowed certain cabinet-level departments to place certain employees under the same status. Can you cite what law or regulation prevents POTUS from delegating this responsibility to others?

 

[TampaJoe]

He didn't amend the law. He allowed certain cabinet-level departments to place certain employees under the same status. Can you cite what law or regulation prevents POTUS from delegating this responsibility to others?

Can POTUS extend the Hatch Act to you?