5 ms·

> The actions are entirely unconstitutional. For all the fetishization of the constitution popular media has led me to believe Americans engage in, when push c

> The actions are entirely unconstitutional. For all the fetishization of the constitution popular media has led me to believe Americans engage in, when push comes to shove it doesn’t seem to be worth the paper it’s written on.

readthenotes1 2y ago
It'd be interesting to find out why people think moving the USAID organization under the Secretary of State is unconstitutional. If they do not disperse the money as directed by Congress to specific causes by the end of the fiscal year then there is a problem, but not until September 30th
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
  You are correct. USAID is an executive agency.
  - ineptech 2y ago
    That doesn't mean it's subject to the whims of the president. When Congress creates independent agencies, they lay out exactly how the president has oversight (usually by hiring and firing the director and/or board). I remember you pushing this idea (that the independence of independent executive agencies are unconstitutional, or unaccountable, or similar) heavily in a thread a couple days ago. Where is it coming from? AFAIK virtually everyone on both sides has agreed that the independence of these agencies was a Really Good Thing for the last hundred years.
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
      I argued that independent agencies are extra-constitutional, not clearly "un"constitutional, but very clearly not enumerated in the Constitution. Given that, they've operated on a consensus model for so long, it's hard to say that the current admin is doing something illegal by changing (as long as the money is spent by end of fiscal year, due to impoundment laws). This may be a "constitutional crisis" in the parliamentary sense, but hardly in the American sense. >virtually everyone on both sides has agreed This is something I've talked about elsewhere, but the electorate that put Trump in office did it specifically in rejection of the Dem & GOP cooperation of the last several decades which led to the same things happening regardless of who was in charge. From that perspective (and without saying anything about legality or wisdom, etc) Trump is doing exactly what the people who put him in office asked him to do.
      - ineptech 2y ago
        I understand you're arguing this, I'm asking where this meme came from. Independent agencies have been around for more than a century and AFAICT the idea that there's something constitutionally unsavory about them is very new. Whence came this idea? Is it something you personally invented that the rest of the right doesn't subscribe to, or are others advocating it, and if so could you refer me to what arguments they're using to justify it?
        AntiDyatlov 2y ago
        I haven't seen arguments that they're constitutionally unsavory, but I've seen arguments, that the President, as chief executive, does have almost CEO-like control over them. FDR did exert such control, in his case using it to expand the federal government, but he ran a fast-moving government. So it's not like there isn't precedent for this, it's just that the consensus was as you said, the independent (some would say unelected) bureaucracy running things. But that was only ever a convention.
        ineptech 2y ago
        In most cases the law that created the agency spells out exactly what control the president has, and AFAIK presidents still have to follow the law like everyone else. Is there any real justification for this, beyond the general notion that FDR once got away with something similar so maybe Trump should too?
        lmm 2y ago
        > AFAICT the idea that there's something constitutionally unsavory about them is very new. I don't think anyone's claiming that they're "unsavory" - just that they are creatures of the executive that were created by the executive and may be abolished by the executive as well. And I don't think it's a new position either? The Ron Paul types have been complaining about them for literally decades.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
- ipython 2y ago
  Eliminating birthright citizenship is cut and dry an attempt at unconstitutional rescindment of the 14th amendment of the constitution.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
    That's unclear to me. The idea that someone can just cheat the naturalization process by smuggling their pregnant selves onto our soil long enough to give birth is absurd. The 14th amendment was added to solve a specific problem, the disenfranchisement of slaves who had truly been born here without their say or that of their parents, for generations, and with the leave of the United States government when that was occurring. Nor can an overly permissive reading be justified on moral grounds... most of Europe (and indeed, the world) does not honor the concept of jus soli. Besides all of that, there is the danger that if Democrats try to play the 14th card against him, Trump will declare the immigrants enemy combatants. At which point they are no longer under the jurisdiction of the United States at all, and he can do more than simply deport them. The left has been out-maneuvered at every step here, it's unlikely that this is the point at which they start winning.
    - philipwhiuk 2y ago
      > That's unclear to me. The idea that someone can just cheat the naturalization process by smuggling their pregnant selves onto our soil long enough to give birth is absurd. But that's not true. Only their offspring gains US citizenship, not them.
      - zombiwoof 2y ago
        [flagged]
      - readthenotes1 2y ago
        And then the parents gain Permanent Residency because of the children. Birthright tourism is an actual business...
        2y ago
- AdieuToLogic 2y ago
  IANAL, so a grain of salt and all that. > It'd be interesting to find out why people think moving the USAID organization under the Secretary of State is unconstitutional. If there are no existing laws to prevent this, then it probably is legal. Given the voluminous laws in existence, I would not be surprised if there was one out there which is relevant. > If they do not disperse the money as directed by Congress to specific causes by the end of the fiscal year then there is a problem, but not until September 30th While this might be a "strict letter of the law" kind of thing (again IANAL), violating the spirit of a law is still illegal. Disbursement schedules are a real thing, with real-world impact when they are not adhered to, and can cause very real problems.
- acdha 2y ago
  It’s unconstitutional because the U.S. has separation of powers: the Congress passes laws and the President executes those laws. USAID was explicitly chartered by the Congress as an independent agency outside of the executive offices: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-1071/uslm/COMPS-1071.xml https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-1071/uslm/COMPS-10... That means that the President can’t wipe it out as an independent agency unilaterally. He could go to the members of his party in the legislature and ask them to create a bill rechartering the agency but then it would get public debate and they’d have to own what they’re doing, so he took the path of daring anyone to enforce the law. It’s like hot-wiring your buddy’s car because you don’t want to ask if you can borrow it, except that it’s disrupting millions of lives.
  - dani__german 2y ago
    disrupting millions of people who REALLY need CIA slush fund money to do "good things" with it, they promise. USAID needs to go into the dustbin and fast.
    - acdha 2y ago
      That’s a valid opinion, but it’s still illegal not to have Congress change the law just as it’s illegal for hurricane survivors to help themselves to Walmart’s stock even if they really need food or clothing.
  - readthenotes1 2y ago
    Thanks for the extract! I didn't see where the chartering is in that, all the refs I saw assumed the group's existence, and only a few referred to it as an "agency"--but maybe I missed it? Most of what I saw was that USA was supposed to follow the guidance of the Secretary of State, or work with other departments. That was Rubio's claim, that not only did it not work with the State Department, but it subverted that department's work and that there was no cooperation with Congressional oversight committees.
beAbU 2y ago
Does the US have a constitutional court? In some constitutional democracies there is a court that sits above the apex court, and they rule on constitutional matters only. I feel this is is an effective check/balance, as it makes the interpretation of the constitution completely unambiguous.
- chasd00 2y ago
  you're talking about the US Supreme Court but it has been politicized over the years and leans to one party or the other instead of strictly interpreting the constitution. For example, many people believe it leans heavily to the right side these days.
- 0xffff2 2y ago
  IANAL, but my understanding is that that effectively is what SCOTUS does most of the time, i.e. very few issues make it to SCOTUS that aren't constitutional questions. In any case, there is not any higher court like you're describing.
- DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
  The US Supreme Court is the original constitutional court. It invented the idea that courts can rule on the constitutionality of laws and governmental actions (in Marbury v. Madison, 1803). Some more recent constitutions have established a separate court that only rules on constitutional issues, but the US doesn't have that.
jcgrillo 2y ago
nit: it's actually written on parchment

readthenotes1 2y ago

It'd be interesting to find out why people think moving the USAID organization under the Secretary of State is unconstitutional. If they do not disperse the money as directed by Congress to specific causes by the end of the fiscal year then there is a problem, but not until September 30th

ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
You are correct. USAID is an executive agency.
- ineptech 2y ago
  That doesn't mean it's subject to the whims of the president. When Congress creates independent agencies, they lay out exactly how the president has oversight (usually by hiring and firing the director and/or board). I remember you pushing this idea (that the independence of independent executive agencies are unconstitutional, or unaccountable, or similar) heavily in a thread a couple days ago. Where is it coming from? AFAIK virtually everyone on both sides has agreed that the independence of these agencies was a Really Good Thing for the last hundred years.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
    I argued that independent agencies are extra-constitutional, not clearly "un"constitutional, but very clearly not enumerated in the Constitution. Given that, they've operated on a consensus model for so long, it's hard to say that the current admin is doing something illegal by changing (as long as the money is spent by end of fiscal year, due to impoundment laws). This may be a "constitutional crisis" in the parliamentary sense, but hardly in the American sense. >virtually everyone on both sides has agreed This is something I've talked about elsewhere, but the electorate that put Trump in office did it specifically in rejection of the Dem & GOP cooperation of the last several decades which led to the same things happening regardless of who was in charge. From that perspective (and without saying anything about legality or wisdom, etc) Trump is doing exactly what the people who put him in office asked him to do.
    - ineptech 2y ago
      I understand you're arguing this, I'm asking where this meme came from. Independent agencies have been around for more than a century and AFAICT the idea that there's something constitutionally unsavory about them is very new. Whence came this idea? Is it something you personally invented that the rest of the right doesn't subscribe to, or are others advocating it, and if so could you refer me to what arguments they're using to justify it?
      - AntiDyatlov 2y ago
        I haven't seen arguments that they're constitutionally unsavory, but I've seen arguments, that the President, as chief executive, does have almost CEO-like control over them. FDR did exert such control, in his case using it to expand the federal government, but he ran a fast-moving government. So it's not like there isn't precedent for this, it's just that the consensus was as you said, the independent (some would say unelected) bureaucracy running things. But that was only ever a convention.
        ineptech 2y ago
        In most cases the law that created the agency spells out exactly what control the president has, and AFAIK presidents still have to follow the law like everyone else. Is there any real justification for this, beyond the general notion that FDR once got away with something similar so maybe Trump should too?
      - lmm 2y ago
        > AFAICT the idea that there's something constitutionally unsavory about them is very new. I don't think anyone's claiming that they're "unsavory" - just that they are creatures of the executive that were created by the executive and may be abolished by the executive as well. And I don't think it's a new position either? The Ron Paul types have been complaining about them for literally decades.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
ipython 2y ago
Eliminating birthright citizenship is cut and dry an attempt at unconstitutional rescindment of the 14th amendment of the constitution.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
  That's unclear to me. The idea that someone can just cheat the naturalization process by smuggling their pregnant selves onto our soil long enough to give birth is absurd. The 14th amendment was added to solve a specific problem, the disenfranchisement of slaves who had truly been born here without their say or that of their parents, for generations, and with the leave of the United States government when that was occurring. Nor can an overly permissive reading be justified on moral grounds... most of Europe (and indeed, the world) does not honor the concept of jus soli. Besides all of that, there is the danger that if Democrats try to play the 14th card against him, Trump will declare the immigrants enemy combatants. At which point they are no longer under the jurisdiction of the United States at all, and he can do more than simply deport them. The left has been out-maneuvered at every step here, it's unlikely that this is the point at which they start winning.
  - philipwhiuk 2y ago
    > That's unclear to me. The idea that someone can just cheat the naturalization process by smuggling their pregnant selves onto our soil long enough to give birth is absurd. But that's not true. Only their offspring gains US citizenship, not them.
    - zombiwoof 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - readthenotes1 2y ago
      And then the parents gain Permanent Residency because of the children. Birthright tourism is an actual business...
      - 2y ago
AdieuToLogic 2y ago
IANAL, so a grain of salt and all that. > It'd be interesting to find out why people think moving the USAID organization under the Secretary of State is unconstitutional. If there are no existing laws to prevent this, then it probably is legal. Given the voluminous laws in existence, I would not be surprised if there was one out there which is relevant. > If they do not disperse the money as directed by Congress to specific causes by the end of the fiscal year then there is a problem, but not until September 30th While this might be a "strict letter of the law" kind of thing (again IANAL), violating the spirit of a law is still illegal. Disbursement schedules are a real thing, with real-world impact when they are not adhered to, and can cause very real problems.
acdha 2y ago
It’s unconstitutional because the U.S. has separation of powers: the Congress passes laws and the President executes those laws. USAID was explicitly chartered by the Congress as an independent agency outside of the executive offices: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-1071/uslm/COMPS-1071.xml https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-1071/uslm/COMPS-10... That means that the President can’t wipe it out as an independent agency unilaterally. He could go to the members of his party in the legislature and ask them to create a bill rechartering the agency but then it would get public debate and they’d have to own what they’re doing, so he took the path of daring anyone to enforce the law. It’s like hot-wiring your buddy’s car because you don’t want to ask if you can borrow it, except that it’s disrupting millions of lives.
- dani__german 2y ago
  disrupting millions of people who REALLY need CIA slush fund money to do "good things" with it, they promise. USAID needs to go into the dustbin and fast.
  - acdha 2y ago
    That’s a valid opinion, but it’s still illegal not to have Congress change the law just as it’s illegal for hurricane survivors to help themselves to Walmart’s stock even if they really need food or clothing.
- readthenotes1 2y ago
  Thanks for the extract! I didn't see where the chartering is in that, all the refs I saw assumed the group's existence, and only a few referred to it as an "agency"--but maybe I missed it? Most of what I saw was that USA was supposed to follow the guidance of the Secretary of State, or work with other departments. That was Rubio's claim, that not only did it not work with the State Department, but it subverted that department's work and that there was no cooperation with Congressional oversight committees.

beAbU 2y ago

Does the US have a constitutional court? In some constitutional democracies there is a court that sits above the apex court, and they rule on constitutional matters only. I feel this is is an effective check/balance, as it makes the interpretation of the constitution completely unambiguous.

chasd00 2y ago
you're talking about the US Supreme Court but it has been politicized over the years and leans to one party or the other instead of strictly interpreting the constitution. For example, many people believe it leans heavily to the right side these days.
0xffff2 2y ago
IANAL, but my understanding is that that effectively is what SCOTUS does most of the time, i.e. very few issues make it to SCOTUS that aren't constitutional questions. In any case, there is not any higher court like you're describing.
DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
The US Supreme Court is the original constitutional court. It invented the idea that courts can rule on the constitutionality of laws and governmental actions (in Marbury v. Madison, 1803). Some more recent constitutions have established a separate court that only rules on constitutional issues, but the US doesn't have that.

jcgrillo 2y ago

nit: it's actually written on parchment