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

[martybegan]

Because he is the Presidenet, not the AG. The Pres no more than anyone else is above the law. The AG is the People's attorney as Trump is the People's ceo.

The AG is only the AG because the Elected President delegated some of his powers to said AG.

The AG is not "the people's attorney"

Please show me in the Constitution where they are called that.

 

[JoeMoma]

Because he is the Presidenet, not the AG. The Pres no more than anyone else is above the law. The AG is the People's attorney as Trump is the People's ceo.

Having the authority to get involved in cases does not equal being above the law!

 

[JoeMoma]

The AG is only the AG because the Elected President delegated some of his powers to said AG.

The AG is not "the people's attorney"

Please show me in the Constitution where they are called that.

The president's cabinet isn't even mentioned in the constitution. It's simply common sense that the chief executive has to have people (departments) that he is executive over.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Because he is the Presidenet, not the AG. The Pres no more than anyone else is above the law. The AG is the People's attorney as Trump is the People's ceo.

What Marty said.

I don’t know where “above the law” even comes into this discussion.

 

[BackAgain]

Actually he’s not.

A bullshit claim from the inveterate lying asshole, skrewy.

Sorry, cupcake. President Trump has done nothing illegal. Your claim to the contrary comes without any hint of support.
You really suck at this.

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.

Which there is no basis for you to claim.

Quick. Go look under your bed, you retard.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The president's cabinet isn't even mentioned in the constitution. It's simply common sense that the chief executive has to have people (departments) that he is executive over.

Trump is defined and confined by the Constitution. The development of our law and history has refined his responsibilities, duties, etc., and has been confined by them. He cannot do whatever he wants.

 

[JoeMoma]

JesusChrist read the constitution!

I stand corrected... even though I'm not JesusChrist.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I stand corrected... even though I'm not JesusChrist.

BOOM!

 

[Seymour Flops]

I stand corrected... even though I'm not JesusChrist.

Apologies for my condescending tone. I have deleted it.

 

[Care4all]

You're dodging the question. If she DID go after them, rightly or wrongly, under a theory of law that you would not understand nearly as well as her, she being an educated and experienced lawyer, would you want Trump to stop her?

Then I would not want the president to stop her.

The judge would if she were wrong

 

[Seymour Flops]

Then I would not want the president to stop her.

The judge would if she were wrong

I don’t think you are sincere about that. I believe that if a president did stop a rogue Attorney General in that situation that you would appalled that president. You would also expect that president to fire that Attorney General.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I don’t think you are sincere about that. I believe that if a president did stop a rogue Attorney General in that situation that you would appalled that president. You would also expect that president to fire that Attorney General.

Problem is that we have a rogue president and a rogue DOJ.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Problem is that we have a rogue president and a rogue DOJ.

My feeling exactly during the last four years.

 

[Care4all]

I don’t think you are sincere about that. I believe that if a president did stop a rogue Attorney General in that situation that you would appalled that president. You would also expect that president to fire that Attorney General.

I'm very sincere on my answer.

You said:

If she DID go after them, rightly or wrongly, under a theory of law that you would not understand nearly as well as her, she being an educated and experienced lawyer, would you want Trump to stop her?


It would not be trump's job to stop her. The judge appointed to the case is who would determine if what she did was right, or wrong, under the law. If what she did was wrong then it is the judge's job to stop her. NOT the president's job to determine if it is legally right or wrong, especially president trump, who is not a lawyer....and would not be impartial....he has opinions only and does not know the law in the way you described, that she did....or in a way the judge would.

Having any president telling the Doj what to do based on their OPINION makes our justice system unfair and open for an abuse of power imo.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I'm very sincere on my answer.

You said:

If she DID go after them, rightly or wrongly, under a theory of law that you would not understand nearly as well as her, she being an educated and experienced lawyer, would you want Trump to stop her?


It would not be trump's job to stop her. The judge appointed to the case is who would determine if what she did was right, or wrong, under the law. If what she did was wrong then it is the judge's job to stop her. NOT the president's job to determine if it is legally right or wrong, especially president trump, who is not a lawyer....and would not be impartial....he has opinions only and does not know the law in the way you described, that she did....or in a way the judge would.

Having any president telling the Doj what to do based on their OPINION makes our justice system unfair and open for an abuse of power imo.

Ok. Well explained and I believe that you are sincere.

I sincerely believe that you are wrong, and the Constitution agrees with me. Here are the words:

Article II Executive Branch​

• 
  
  • ArtII.1Overview of Article II, Executive Branch
    Section 1 Function and Selection
  
  
  
  • Clause 1 President's Role
  • The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

 

[San Souci]

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?

Sounds like that "Independent Special Council" appointed to overturn the 2016 Election.

 

[Care4all]

Ok. Well explained and I believe that you are sincere.

I sincerely believe that you are wrong, and the Constitution agrees with me. Here are the words:

Article II Executive Branch​

• 
  
  • ArtII.1Overview of Article II, Executive Branch
    Section 1 Function and Selection
  
  
  
  • Clause 1 President's Role
  • The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

Ok. Well explained and I believe that you are sincere.

I sincerely believe that you are wrong, and the Constitution agrees with me. Here are the words:

Article II Executive Branch​

• 
  
  • ArtII.1Overview of Article II, Executive Branch
    Section 1 Function and Selection
  
  
  
  • Clause 1 President's Role
  • The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

Can you honestly say our founders believed the president would decide who is criminal or not, or go after who he perceives to be his enemies by using our justice system, and our AG of the people, ( that's all of we the people) to do so?

I think YOU are honestly mistaken!

 

[Seymour Flops]

Can you honestly say our founders believed the president would decide who is criminal or not,

No, that is the Judicial Branch, which is Article III

or go after who he perceives to be his enemies by using our justice system,

You're talking about Joe Biden, now?

Trump has never said he would go after people he perceived to be his enemies. That's a made up media spin.

No doubt that is how Politico would spin it. If they are able to stay open now that they are no longer to be on the public teat.

and our AG of the people, ( that's all of we the people) to do so?

Where in the Constitution does it say that the Attorney General is "our AG of the people?"

Even if it does, the people voted for Trump overwhelmingly, knowing that he would pick people just like Pam Bondi. However, if Pam Bondy goes off the rails, the check on her would be the elected president, or the elected congress, or the constitutionally appointed courts.

She is not Queen of her own Monarchy.

I think YOU are honestly mistaken!

That's your right.

 

[Man With A Plan]

Can you honestly say our founders believed the president would decide who is criminal or not, or go after who he perceives to be his enemies by using our justice system, and our AG of the people, ( that's all of we the people) to do so?

I think YOU are honestly mistaken!

What has Joe Biden been doing for the last four years, Care? Are you REALLY this blind?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Ok. Well explained and I believe that you are sincere.

I sincerely believe that you are wrong, and the Constitution agrees with me. Here are the words:

Article II Executive Branch​

• 
  
  • ArtII.1Overview of Article II, Executive Branch
    Section 1 Function and Selection
  
  
  
  • Clause 1 President's Role
  • The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

Your opinion is bogus, and you do not under the Constitution.