Trump signs executive order allowing only attorney general or president to interpret meaning of laws

[excalibur]

Wham!

Another blow to the bureaucracy. And a victory for the People.

President Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order declaring that only the attorney general or the president, instead of federal regulators or bureaucrats, can speak for the U.S. when interpreting the meaning of laws carried out by the executive branch.

An aide talking about the order said it “reestablishes a long-standing norm” in the U.S. The order comes as Mr. Trump’s critics fight his agenda in court and raise accusations that he’ll ignore judicial orders.

“The President and the Attorney General’s opinions on questions of law are controlling on all employees in the conduct of their official duties,” the order states.

The document asserts that “previous administrations have allowed so-called ‘independent regulatory agencies’ to operate with minimal Presidential supervision.”

“These regulatory agencies currently exercise substantial executive authority without sufficient accountability to the President, and through him, to the American people,” the order said. “Moreover, these regulatory agencies have been permitted to promulgate significant regulations without review by the President.”

The president also signed a memorandum requiring federal agencies to report waste, fraud and abuse that’s uncovered and to detail programs that are eliminated. The aide described it as “imposing radical transparency requirements on government departments and agencies.”​

Trump signs executive orders limiting power of agencies, expanding IVF access

President Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order declaring that only the attorney general or the president, instead of federal regulators or bureaucrats, can speak for the U.S. when interpreting the meaning of laws carried out by the executive branch.

www.washingtontimes.com

 

[1srelluc]

 

[Manonthestreet]

Probably wont stand

 

[pknopp]

Trump seems to enjoy losing in the courts.

 

[DGS49]

If you would give the matter at least thirty seconds of thought, you would consider that the President and the Attorney General swear an oath to abide by the Constitution.

Hmmm.

How should they do that? Ask the Supreme Court when something comes up? That won't work; the Supreme Court will only rule on actual cases, not hypotheticals.

So the President and the AG must make their own assessment of what the Constitution demands, right? How else can they act in accordance with the Constitution. Should they let their subordinates decide for themselves? What organization would have such a stupid policy?

If they make a choice that is questionable, then anyone who is harmed by it (who has legal STANDING) can challenge it in court, and if they are right...

Congressmen take the same fucking oath, eh? And yet they do unconstitutional shit day after day after day. The Democrats, I mean.

 

[sparky]

excuse my naivety , but i thought all 3 branches worked together on this??? ~S~

 

[Michael1985]

Wham!

Another blow to the bureaucracy. And a victory for the People.

​

President Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order declaring that only the attorney general or the president, instead of federal regulators or bureaucrats, can speak for the U.S. when interpreting the meaning of laws carried out by the executive branch.​

​

An aide talking about the order said it “reestablishes a long-standing norm” in the U.S. The order comes as Mr. Trump’s critics fight his agenda in court and raise accusations that he’ll ignore judicial orders.​

​

“The President and the Attorney General’s opinions on questions of law are controlling on all employees in the conduct of their official duties,” the order states.​

​

The document asserts that “previous administrations have allowed so-called ‘independent regulatory agencies’ to operate with minimal Presidential supervision.”​

​

“These regulatory agencies currently exercise substantial executive authority without sufficient accountability to the President, and through him, to the American people,” the order said. “Moreover, these regulatory agencies have been permitted to promulgate significant regulations without review by the President.”​

​

The president also signed a memorandum requiring federal agencies to report waste, fraud and abuse that’s uncovered and to detail programs that are eliminated. The aide described it as “imposing radical transparency requirements on government departments and agencies.”​

Trump signs executive orders limiting power of agencies, expanding IVF access

President Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order declaring that only the attorney general or the president, instead of federal regulators or bureaucrats, can speak for the U.S. when interpreting the meaning of laws carried out by the executive branch.

www.washingtontimes.com

It's an empty piece of paper, like many of the edicts he has signed so far.

 

[JGalt]

It's an empty piece of paper, like many of the edicts he has signed so far.

If Trump's EOs are just "empty pieces of paper", why are the leftards losing their shit every time he signs one?

 

[1srelluc]

It's an empty piece of paper, like many of the edicts he has signed so far.

Till it's upheld by SCOTUS.

Then what you gonna do?

No different that a state really, if a state AG tells a Governor that something is GTG it's then up to the state SC to decide when and only if a viable challenge is made.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Wham!

Another blow to the bureaucracy. And a victory for the People.

​

President Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order declaring that only the attorney general or the president, instead of federal regulators or bureaucrats, can speak for the U.S. when interpreting the meaning of laws carried out by the executive branch.​

​

An aide talking about the order said it “reestablishes a long-standing norm” in the U.S. The order comes as Mr. Trump’s critics fight his agenda in court and raise accusations that he’ll ignore judicial orders.​

​

“The President and the Attorney General’s opinions on questions of law are controlling on all employees in the conduct of their official duties,” the order states.​

​

The document asserts that “previous administrations have allowed so-called ‘independent regulatory agencies’ to operate with minimal Presidential supervision.”​

​

“These regulatory agencies currently exercise substantial executive authority without sufficient accountability to the President, and through him, to the American people,” the order said. “Moreover, these regulatory agencies have been permitted to promulgate significant regulations without review by the President.”​

​

The president also signed a memorandum requiring federal agencies to report waste, fraud and abuse that’s uncovered and to detail programs that are eliminated. The aide described it as “imposing radical transparency requirements on government departments and agencies.”​

Trump signs executive orders limiting power of agencies, expanding IVF access

President Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order declaring that only the attorney general or the president, instead of federal regulators or bureaucrats, can speak for the U.S. when interpreting the meaning of laws carried out by the executive branch.

www.washingtontimes.com

Damn the Constitution, we'll just go around it.

 

[Blaster]

Damn the Constitution, we'll just go around it.

You don't know a damn thing about the constitution.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

If Trump's EOs are just "empty pieces of paper", why are the leftards losing their shit every time he signs one?

Indeed,why are they going into panic mode on here such as trumps biggest fan the wanker.

 

[TimFitz]

Wham!

Another blow to the bureaucracy. And a victory for the People.

​

President Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order declaring that only the attorney general or the president, instead of federal regulators or bureaucrats, can speak for the U.S. when interpreting the meaning of laws carried out by the executive branch.​

​

An aide talking about the order said it “reestablishes a long-standing norm” in the U.S. The order comes as Mr. Trump’s critics fight his agenda in court and raise accusations that he’ll ignore judicial orders.​

​

“The President and the Attorney General’s opinions on questions of law are controlling on all employees in the conduct of their official duties,” the order states.​

​

The document asserts that “previous administrations have allowed so-called ‘independent regulatory agencies’ to operate with minimal Presidential supervision.”​

​

“These regulatory agencies currently exercise substantial executive authority without sufficient accountability to the President, and through him, to the American people,” the order said. “Moreover, these regulatory agencies have been permitted to promulgate significant regulations without review by the President.”​

​

The president also signed a memorandum requiring federal agencies to report waste, fraud and abuse that’s uncovered and to detail programs that are eliminated. The aide described it as “imposing radical transparency requirements on government departments and agencies.”​

Trump signs executive orders limiting power of agencies, expanding IVF access

President Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order declaring that only the attorney general or the president, instead of federal regulators or bureaucrats, can speak for the U.S. when interpreting the meaning of laws carried out by the executive branch.

www.washingtontimes.com

Un Constituional. Flagrantly so.

He must be stopped before he destroys this country.

 

[MisterBeale]

IMO? It is really dumb for the establishment to be taking everything he does to court.

I don't think he is going to roll over on that anymore.

Two can play the lawfare game.
. . . and I believe that is what Trump has in mind.

What I have read on Pam, she isn't fooling around.

Conservative legal analyst rebukes Trump's DOJ: "Partisan law enforcement"

Andy McCarthy warned on Sunday against U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi's "weaponization working group" directive.

www.newsweek.com

"Under the guise of 'Restoring the Integrity and Credibility of the Department of Justice,' the AG is implementing the Biden DOJ model of conviction first and trial later—if ever. Standing convicted are Trump's principal prosecutorial nemeses—Biden DOJ special counsel Jack Smith, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, and New York Attorney General Letitia James—and therefore guilty by association are any DOJ and FBI personnel who aided and abetted them. In what crimes, we're not told—only that Bondi will be "provid[ing] quarterly reports to the White House regarding the progress of the review," McCarthy wrote.

While McCarthy argued former President Joe Biden's DOJ was politicized, stating "I agree that Smith, Bragg, and James were overzealous and corruptly partisan..." he said that Trump also engaged in "serious misconduct."

However, he warned that Bondi's efforts with the "weaponization working group" could be seen as engaging in "partisan law enforcement" if she "spouts Trump's grievances without putting the department's response to egregious behavior in context."

"Pam Bondi now represents the Justice Department—in fact, leads it. It is thus her ethical duty to advance whatever good-faith defense there is of the government's conduct. If she is just going to spout Trump's grievances without putting the Justice Department's response to egregious behavior in context, then she's engaging in partisan law enforcement, exactly the noxious practice she claims to be rooting out," McCarthy wrote. . . "

 

[Moonglow]

If you would give the matter at least thirty seconds of thought, you would consider that the President and the Attorney General swear an oath to abide by the Constitution.

Hmmm.

How should they do that? Ask the Supreme Court when something comes up? That won't work; the Supreme Court will only rule on actual cases, not hypotheticals.

So the President and the AG must make their own assessment of what the Constitution demands, right? How else can they act in accordance with the Constitution. Should they let their subordinates decide for themselves? What organization would have such a stupid policy?

If they make a choice that is questionable, then anyone who is harmed by it (who has legal STANDING) can challenge it in court, and if they are right...

Congressmen take the same fucking oath, eh? And yet they do unconstitutional shit day after day after day. The Democrats, I mean.

Just the Dems do it, you remind me of the old saying, in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king.

 

[IM2]

You don't know a damn thing about the constitution.

I'm sure he knows more than you.

 

[IM2]

IMO? It is really dumb for the establishment to be taking everything he does to court.

I don't think he is going to roll over on that anymore.

Two can play the lawfare game.
. . . and I believe that is what Trump has in mind.

What I have read on Pam, she isn't fooling around.

Conservative legal analyst rebukes Trump's DOJ: "Partisan law enforcement"

Andy McCarthy warned on Sunday against U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi's "weaponization working group" directive.

www.newsweek.com

"Under the guise of 'Restoring the Integrity and Credibility of the Department of Justice,' the AG is implementing the Biden DOJ model of conviction first and trial later—if ever. Standing convicted are Trump's principal prosecutorial nemeses—Biden DOJ special counsel Jack Smith, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, and New York Attorney General Letitia James—and therefore guilty by association are any DOJ and FBI personnel who aided and abetted them. In what crimes, we're not told—only that Bondi will be "provid[ing] quarterly reports to the White House regarding the progress of the review," McCarthy wrote.

While McCarthy argued former President Joe Biden's DOJ was politicized, stating "I agree that Smith, Bragg, and James were overzealous and corruptly partisan..." he said that Trump also engaged in "serious misconduct."

However, he warned that Bondi's efforts with the "weaponization working group" could be seen as engaging in "partisan law enforcement" if she "spouts Trump's grievances without putting the department's response to egregious behavior in context."

"Pam Bondi now represents the Justice Department—in fact, leads it. It is thus her ethical duty to advance whatever good-faith defense there is of the government's conduct. If she is just going to spout Trump's grievances without putting the Justice Department's response to egregious behavior in context, then she's engaging in partisan law enforcement, exactly the noxious practice she claims to be rooting out," McCarthy wrote. . . "

What you guys call lawfare is the application of law on criminals.

 

[Dante]

Wham!

Trump signs executive order allowing only attorney general or president to interpret meaning of laws​

The US Constitution is on Line #1​

 

[Dante]

Trump's shock and awe has mostly run it's course. He's wobbling now. The weird shit will reign

 

[BackAgain]

Probably wont stand

Why wouldn’t it?