The Trump Cabinet and key post thread (2 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
    Optimus Prime said:
    www.cnn.com

    Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy will lead new ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ in Trump administration | CNN Politics

    President-elect Donald Trump announced Tuesday that Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy will lead a new “Department of Government Efficiency” in his second administration.
    www.cnn.com www.cnn.com
    Click to expand...
    Because nothing better than creating new bureaucracy to try to trim the rest of the bureaucracy. If he cared one bit about actually becoming more efficient he would appoint people that can actually do that to each cabinet post. Instead we see total cronyism.

    He’s so not serious about doing anything he promised to do, IMO.
     
    Big alarm bells should be going off for this one. This is a way for Trump to get rid of any military brass that won’t pledge allegiance to him. The GOP better grow a spine and some actual patriotism pretty damn soon, or they are just ushering in a corrupt oligarchy. I’m afraid they don’t give a tinker’s damn about this country.

     
    Why would anything he does with these appointments shock anyone? Of course his cabinet will be filled by individuals whose main goal is to tear down those departments or render them inert.
     
    MT15 said:
    Click to expand...

    Served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Two Bronze stars. Currently a Major. Bachelors Degree from Princeton and Masters in Public Policy from the John F. Kennedy School at Harvard. Might be enough to get the job.
     
    Sendai said:
    Served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Two Bronze stars. Currently a Major. Bachelors Degree from Princeton and Masters in Public Policy from the John F. Kennedy School at Harvard. Might be enough to get the job.
    Click to expand...
    He was never Regular Army, he has always been in the Guard. It is not the same.
     
    Last edited:
    Sendai said:
    Served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Two Bronze stars. Currently a Major. Bachelors Degree from Princeton and Masters in Public Policy from the John F. Kennedy School at Harvard. Might be enough to get the job.
    Click to expand...
    After watching Ivy Leaguers debase themselves so easily the past 8 years, those degrees no longer impress me. What I am interested in is some actual concept of public service. Allegiance to the US and its Constitution rather than subservience to one man.

    He’s a horrible pick.
     
    MT15 said:
    They are pressuring DeSantis to appoint Lara Trump. Not exactly sending their best are they? At least Tuberville won’t be the stupidest senator any longer.

    Click to expand...

    He’s term limited and out in Florida as governor. Maybe he’ll appoint himself. There’ll be 2026 senate election for the spot. He couldvrun as the sitting senator.
     
    Sendai said:
    Iraq and Afghanistan and two bronze stars. Close enough. And he clearly has the education.
    Click to expand...
    Nope. Not. Even. Close.

    Look back in these past 30+ years of combat and count the documented misconduct cases by Guard/Reserve units vs Regular Service units. Disciplinary standards are vastly different between the weekend warriors and regular forces and that guy actively lobbied trump for pardons of several guardsmen convicted of war-crimes. That's not a guy you would want to lead the DoD.
     
    MT15 said:
    CIA director

    Click to expand...


    So this leaves the door open for Kash Patel to head the FBI, with speculation that Wray will be forced out. Very alarming if so. Patel has been outspoken about retribution against “Trump’s enemies.”

    www.nbcnews.com

    FBI Director Christopher Wray is preparing for a possible forced exit under Trump

    One person under consideration for the job is Trump adviser Kash Patel, who is also being considered to lead the CIA, two sources familiar with the matter told NBC News.
    www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com
     
    Sendai said:
    Congress is required by the “necessary and proper “ clause to fund.

    I’ve yet to find the constitutionally defined power for Congress to legislate behavior of the presidency or the Supreme Court.
    Click to expand...

    That's not what the 'necessary and proper' clause is, but I'll get to that in a minute. I'm more curious about where you looked to find such a power for Congress? A great place to start would be Article I - it gives Congress legislative power that yes, includes power to legislate over matters that include the presidency and the Supreme Court. In fact, you'll find that the legal history of the United States is chock-full of examples where Congress has legislated the presidency (i.e. the executive branch) and the Supreme Court.

    Here's an exercise: go to the United States Code website (that's where all of the codified federal statutory law is kept) and in the search bar, type "the president shall". This will give you a search for all of the times in the body of current US statutes where Congress instructs the president to do something. I'll go ahead and tell you that based on the current law in the US Code, there are 1,749 instances where Congress has legislated that the president "shall" do something. If you include all of federal statutory law since the beginning of the United States, I'm sure this number is quite larger.

    The relationship between Congress and the executive branch is heavily intertwined but through the lawmaking power, Congress does indeed legislate conduct of the executive branch and even the president himself. The president's tool in the balance against the legislative prerogative is the veto . . . but Congress can override the veto and make law binding upon the president notwithstanding the president's objection.


    Congress also exercises legislative power over the Supreme Court, though in a more limited way due to the need for judicial independence that doesn't otherwise encumber the relationship between Congress and the presidency. Beginning with the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress legislated how many Supreme Court justices there would be and how much they would be paid. Congress has legislated a change in the size of the Supreme Court six times to date. While a few certain parameters of the Court and its membership are set by the Constitution apart from legislation (including lifetime tenure and original jurisdiction) the Constitution also expressly grants Congress authority to regulate appellate jurisdiction . . . and in theory anything else Congress chooses because the Supreme Court's only defense to federal legislation is to find it unconstitutional. For the most part, the Supreme Court will be able to keep its independence as a structural matter but Congress does regulate the Court in some ways including setting pay and in certain administrative aspects. For example, Congress has instructed the Supreme Court to comply with financial disclosure requirements and many believe that a ministerial form of Supreme Court ethics legislation is within Congress' power.


    But what we were really talking about is enforcement - and we agreed that impeachment was the only direct tool that Congress had to hold the president, executive branch officials, and Court justices accountable for violation of federal law. I noted that a Congress set on holding the executive branch to the contours of valid statutory law has the appropriations power (the power of the purse) to attempt to use federal funding as an enforcement tool.

    You (appearing to disagree) said that Congress is "required to fund" by the necessary and proper clause, suggesting that Congress has no discretion with appropriations because the "necessary and proper" clause demands Congress fund the executive branch. This is just plain nonsense. The necessary and proper clause is what gives Congress the operational latitude (the "elasticity") to conduct legislative functions described in the Constitution - it is the source of all of the implied power that does along with the enumerated powers. "The Necessary and Proper Clause . . . is an enlargement, not a constriction of the powers expressly granted to Congress." (Justia, US Const. Annotated, Article I). In other words, it bestows power, it does not limit it by requiring Congress to act in any required way.

    In fact, not only is Congress not compelled by the necessary and proper clause to pass a budget, Congress isn't compelled by any source of law to pass a budget - or to pass any particular budget apart from the one it ultimately passes. But indeed, Article I provides that "no money shall be drawn from the Treasury" except that which Congress authorizes . . . which means that Congress holds the ultimate authority to decide what funding the president gets and does not get (because Congress can override presidential veto into federal law). And this means that Congress has significant operational control over what agencies can and cannot do by use of the funding power. A recent CRS report (with full citation) noted that "Congress exercises virtually plenary control over agency funding. This power to determine agency budget authority can be used to control agency priorities, prohibit agency action by denying funds for a specific action, or force agency action by either explicitly providing budget authority for a program or activity or withholding funding until the agency complies with Congress’s wishes."

    Congress has institutionally exercised this power in both the Antideficiency Act (prohibiting executive use of funds beyond that which is appropriated) and the Impoundment Act (requiring that appropriated money be spent as provided in the appropriations law and not simply left unspent). These two key funding control laws have two enforcement mechanisms apart from impeachment: (1) they are enforceable by injunction in federal court, placing a non-compliant presidency potentially at odds with both of the other two branches, and (2) the ability for Congress to withhold pay of the offending federal officials along with criminal charges.

    But as a matter of means of exerting pressure on the president to conform, both of these laws coupled with the budget process give Congress a powerful enforcement mechanism by simply refusing to fund the president's priority programs or even directly funding their opposite. There are numerous examples where Congress has refused to fund presidential priorities because Congress didn't agree with those priorities.

    This, as I am (rightly) contending, is a soft power: If, for example, the president wants funding for dramatic enhancements to immigration enforcement, Congress can insist that the president meet his obligations under federal financial reporting requirements applicable to the president but currently being ignored. This is nothing more than the application of structural politics in the federal system. If the president wants funding for his priorities and Congress is telling him it's not coming unless he meets other obligations under federal law, the president can either comply or see his priorities go unfunded . . . he doesn't have broad discretion to go do it anyway.

    But the general trend has certainly been for Congress to continue to cede authority the president and the executive in the name of party-politics and be unwilling to unite for federal structural purposes despite the obvious result that taking such action would check the growing power of any president regardless of party.




    law.justia.com

    Necessary and Proper Clause

    , of the US Constitution: Analysis and Interpretation
    law.justia.com law.justia.com

     
    Last edited:
    MT15 said:
    Because nothing better than creating new bureaucracy to try to trim the rest of the bureaucracy. If he cared one bit about actually becoming more efficient he would appoint people that can actually do that to each cabinet post. Instead we see total cronyism.

    He’s so not serious about doing anything he promised to do, IMO.
    Click to expand...

    Not only creating new bureaucracy but a new bureaucracy designed to improve efficiency with two heads is comical irony.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom