Where did we Get the Idea that Agencies Created by Congress to be Under the Executive Branch are Supposed to be Independent?

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Can't answer the question, can ya?

You did like the answer.

That's your problem.

Write the AG.

 

[martybegan]

You did like the answer.

That's your problem.

Write the AG.

Keep on deflecting, it just leads to moar winning on our part.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

There's no deflection. You don't like the answer. No one cares.

 

[martybegan]

There's no deflection. You don't like the answer. No one cares.

LOl, says the dip that decides to not quote someone in a pathetic attempt to try to get the last word in.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

LOl, says the dip that decides to not quote someone in a pathetic attempt to try to get the last word in.

No one cares, my little bud.

 

[Seymour Flops]

You may think so. In reality, that is not how the DOJ runs.

Tough, even Jeff Sessions told Trump "no" as did Bill Barr.

Which is fine. It’s a supervisory relationship, not a master-slave one.

President Trump fired Jeff sessions and allowed Bill bar to stay on. Those were his decisions as the person invested with the executive power of the United States government.

Of course, there is also Congress, which can on its own impeach and remove , an attorney general or a president, for that matter.

Who knows? The Democrats may someday decide to try to impeach and remove Pam Bondi. They would be wise not to but when has that ever stopped them?

The constitution lays out a plan for the various parts of government to be intertwined, not to be “independent. “

As I said before, independent is admired and an important part of the American spirit. But that is for individuals, not for government. government must be constantly under our thumbs, not only through our elected officials, but the checks and balances on them.

“Independence” of government is a path to dictatorship. Especially Department of Justice, as we have seen for the last eight years when they went rogue.

 

[Care4all]

Can the president fire her?

Yes. The assistant AG is in the line of succession until the Senate gives advise and consent to the president's next pick....

The senate is a crucial part of the president's picks for cabinet and other picks of the president....the constitution did not give the president sole power over this....with good reason....he's not a king.

Nixon had articles of impeachment drawn for abuse of his power, partly because of his Saturday night massacre of the AGs refusal to fire someone the president wanted....the Special Prosecutor investigating him. He resigned instead, then the asst AG also refused and he then resigned too, then the third person in line for AG did what the president asked, but a new Special prosecutor was appointed immediately by the Senate.

From that point forward, the DOJ was set up to be independent of the presidency.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Yes. The assistant AG is in the line of succession until the Senate gives advise and consent to the president's next pick....

The senate is a crucial part of the president's picks for cabinet and other picks of the president....the constitution did not give the president sole power over this....with good reason....he's not a king.

I said all that in post #26.

Nixon had articles of impeachment drawn for abuse of his power, partly because of his Saturday night massacre of the AGs refusal to fire someone the president wanted....the Special Prosecutor investigating him. He resigned instead, then the asst AG also refused and he then resigned too, then the third person in line for AG did what the president asked, but a new Special prosecutor was appointed immediately by the Senate.

Yes, but if the senate had gone along with Nixon, the AG could not have told them all, “I’m independent, so you can’t do that!”

Nixon picked Robert Borque who fired Archbald Cox. Cox stayed fired and lived out his life as an unpopular professor at Harvard Law.

From that point forward, the DOJ was set up to be independent of the presidency.

False conclusion. The Senate and house have oversight over DOJ while the president guides their policy. DOJ has zero power independent of that.

 

[justoffal]

I thought the idea was for the President to lead the agencies, through his appointees, for Congress to have oversight over these agencies through information gathering and control of the purse strings, and for the courts to be able to step in when these agencies violate the Constitution.

That seems a lot better than having a bunch of unelected bureaucrats run the government, and refuse to obey the president, be accountable to Congress, or follow USSC rulings.

What does "independent" even mean when it comes to a government agency?

It seems that when one side or another says, "the __________ agency should be independent," it is because that agency wants to do something the policial side favors, but is rejected by the president, the congress, or the courts.

I don't believe that the independence of federal agencies is called for in the Constitution. Is there a statute that says calls for it? Do statutes establishing particular agencies mention whether and to what extent they will be independent?

Everything in the executive branch is subject to the president. As FF pointed out the ethical tradition has been to let them function without interference.
However that is assuming they don't get seized by radicals and work against the very executive branch they're supposed to be a part of.

 

[justoffal]

Yes. The assistant AG is in the line of succession until the Senate gives advise and consent to the president's next pick....

The senate is a crucial part of the president's picks for cabinet and other picks of the president....the constitution did not give the president sole power over this....with good reason....he's not a king.

Nixon had articles of impeachment drawn for abuse of his power, partly because of his Saturday night massacre of the AGs refusal to fire someone the president wanted....the Special Prosecutor investigating him. He resigned instead, then the asst AG also refused and he then resigned too, then the third person in line for AG did what the president asked, but a new Special prosecutor was appointed immediately by the Senate.

From that point forward, the DOJ was set up to be independent of the presidency.

I don't think that's codified by written law.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I said all that in post #26.

Yes, but if the senate had gone along with Nixon, the AG could not have told them all, “I’m independent, so you can’t do that!”

Nixon picked Robert Borque who fired Archbald Cox. Cox stayed fired and lived out his life as an unpopular professor at Harvard Law.

False conclusion. The Senate and house have oversight over DOJ while the president guides their policy. DOJ has zero power independent of that.

AG has plenty of alternatives if the Pres goes dictatorial.

 

[Seymour Flops]

AG has plenty of alternatives if the Pres goes dictatorial.

The AG does?

Like what?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The AG does?

Like what?

Let it be a surprise, little one.

 

[BackAgain]

DOJ has been traditionally independent of the Office of the President.

No. It has made that claim, though, frequently.

It was never actually true.

 

[BackAgain]

Let it be a surprise, little one.

Translation:

Blowhard retarded horses is full of shit.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Let it be a surprise, little one.

Yeah.

Whatever you have in mind for Pam Bondi to do, I'm sure she'd look great if she did it. Much better than:

 

[skews13]

The Court has wrestled a bit with such legislative constraints on the President’s constitutional authority to run the Executive Branch.

I don’t believe it is easily summarized without losing a little clarity and precision, but I do believe it is generally fair to put it like this:

The court seems to be saying that although Congress cannot validly limit the President’s ability to manage the Executive Branch (Myers v. United States, 1926) in general, it can somewhat limit his unilateral authority for certain specific matters, like firing certain employees. It seems to come down to whether the Department in question is an “independent regulatory agency.” Humphrey’s Executor (1936).

So, in firing some of the an Inspectors General, the question is WHETHER those inspectors General constitute “independent regulatory agencies.”

It appears that they are NOT.

SO, President Trump sure seems to be acting in a Constitutional manner.

Actually he’s not. But we’re going to find out how you like a private citizen not elected to anything looking at your personal data in four years.

See you down the road sunshine.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Care4all, John Edgar Slow Horses, let's get away from the DOJ. I know that was your favorite department since it went after Trump under Obama, Trump, and Biden. Now you're shocked that it won't be allowed to do that to the sitting president, who was overwhelmingly elected.

But, do you apply that to all federal agencies? Is the Department of Commerce also an independent agency, whose actions are directed only by the Secretary of Commerce with no power of the President or Congress to "interfere?"

Department of Education?

Department of Housing and Urban Development?

Each of these is it's only little unelected monarchy, with the Secretary at the top and accountable to no one but their own agendas?

 

[Care4all]

Care4all, John Edgar Slow Horses, let's get away from the DOJ. I know that was your favorite department since it went after Trump under Obama, Trump, and Biden. Now you're shocked that it won't be allowed to do that to the sitting president, who was overwhelmingly elected.

But, do you apply that to all federal agencies? Is the Department of Commerce also an independent agency, whose actions are directed only by the Secretary of Commerce with no power of the President or Congress to "interfere?"

Department of Education?

Department of Housing and Urban Development?

Each of these is it's only little unelected monarchy, with the Secretary at the top and accountable to no one but their own agendas?

But isn't taking an oath to the constitution taking an oath to uphold the laws made under the constitution? Even the military, where the president is CIC, are suppose to refuse any unlawful order by any president??

 

[Seymour Flops]

But isn't taking an oath to the constitution taking an oath to uphold the laws made under the constitution? Even the military, where the president is CIC, are suppose to refuse any unlawful order by any president??

Of course.

When I was a Private in the Army, I was supposed to refuse any unlawful order of my two-star division commander. But that did not make me "independent."

But you say the DOJ is. Let's see if you're serious:

What if the DOJ goes beyond the president's desires? What if Pam Bondi starts prosecuting each of the agents who participated in the raid on Mar-a-Lago for criminal trespass while armed and under color of law? What are they going to say? What could they say, except "I was only following orders?"

Suppose Trump agrees with the agents that they were under orders, and tells her to back off. Suppose she says, "Hell NO! They are supposed to refuse unlawful orders! It is against the law to execute a search warrant for political purposes. US Code 22, section 7102, subsection (1), abuse of law or process. You know how I know that, Fat Boy? Because I'm a lawyer, not a fucking game show host. Leave this to me, I want my independence, God DAMNIT! We gotta nip this in the bud, or those perves will be going through my underwear after I'm president!"

You would side with Bondi, because the DOJ is independent? Or you would be happy that Trump is "interfering?"