@realcaseyrollins @interfluidity
Some people would only be happy if he surrendered in advance to everybody.
Some people, of small brain, can't grasp that he took an oath to protect and defend, and that includes American hostages. Some people are too dense to realize that being anti war can only go so far and isn't the same as being a surrender monkey or pacivist.
There are actually people that cant tell the difference between projecting power and war adventurism.
Sadly, these zombies vote.
@Phil @realcaseyrollins his oath, by the way, is to protect and defend the Constitution. but i sure hope he does protect and defend American citizens. i'll be impressed if he doesn't take the Biden Administration approach of ignoring deaths of American citizens in Israel/Palestine if they are ethnic Palestinians. 1/
@Phil @realcaseyrollins so far i've seen the opposite of any kind of successful or meaningful projection of power, other than in Israel, where Netanyahu wanted to give his ally a win in exchange for greater help and license going forward. which he has gotten, in Trump's plain endorsement of population transfer / "ethnic cleansing" from Gaza. (which, to be clear, at least has the virtue of a certain honesty that the prior administration lacked on Gaza). /fin
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins
You aren't looking in the right places, or are too blinded by TDS to notice.
@Phil @realcaseyrollins I mean, domestically Musk is "projecting power", illegally and doing great harm. Much of that will be reversed, but much that is broken will take a long time to fix. And none of what he's attacking is at the heart of any of our problems. (Of course the heart of all our problems is brain death: the Constitution makes Congress the brains of our system, and Congress no longer functions due to rigging the electoral system for job security.)
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins
All Musk has done is uncover how incredibly broken the federal leviathan is. He hasn't done so much as an ounce of harm to anybody but corrupt people who are personally benefiting from ripping off US taxpayers.
It's proving educational to people. Shining a light on the evil, is the first and most important step and CANNOT be undone. And that makes it glorious.
There is nothing illegal about it and nothing dems havent done before. I hope they enjoy sucking on it
@Phil @realcaseyrollins There is everything illegal about it, food aid is rotting, people who would have been going hungry, and you are willfully blind. Might USAID have been reformed? Sure. That's what Congress is for, and you wind things down to minimize harms, if you decide you are going to wind things down.
@interfluidity @Phil I'm lost is #USAID mentioned in the #Constitution or something? Why is defunding or shutting it down illegal? What law does that break?
@realcaseyrollins USAID was, as @Phil says, initially established by executive order under JFK to pursue objectives set out in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
but it was formally codified into a Congressionally mandated agency in the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1997 https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/1757/text
what Congress mandates only Congress can undo.
this was less than 10 minutes of Googling. willful ignorance.
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins
Did you read that law? What it does is transfer USAID and place it under the authority of the Secretary of State.
It does't do anything to codify its structure or existence as is today, into law.
It clearly states that Agency personnell needs are under the descretion of the Secretary of State.
@Phil @realcaseyrollins It enshrines an agency. Yes, under the state dept, Secretary of State:
"Unless abolished pursuant to the reorganization
plan submitted under section 601, and except as provided in section
412, there is within the executive branch of Government the United
States Agency for International Development as an entity described in
section 104 of title 5, United States Code."
Pretty plain language! 1/
@Phil @realcaseyrollins 602 explicitly forsees the reorganization of AID, but sets a deadline of October 1, 1998. 2/
@Phil @realcaseyrollins that "under this division" in 611 is referring back to 601. it's not perpetual authorization for SoS to reorganize the State department. that's the very function of this bill! it was permission that expired in 1998. /fin
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins
It in no way codifies a seperate entity called USAID.
Congress loves to pass vague laws and in this case in workes out quite well.
@Phil @realcaseyrollins it precisely codifies an agency it calls AID — Agency for International Development — and creates a period of time during which a potential reorganization might be pursued. that period very long ago expired, with AID still extant.
@Phil @realcaseyrollins are you suggesting calling it "United States Agency for International Development" means it wasn't the codified agency? man, what a bureaucrat you'd be.
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins
No, I'm suggesting that the law acknowledges it's existence and refers to it, but doesn't codify it's existence or structure.
@Phil @realcaseyrollins yes. an administration could internally reorganize AID! but AID must exist, and it must pursue the purposes for which Congress mandated it, until Congress unmandates it.
taking something to the "wood chipper" means destroying it. that is illegal. is taping over the name of US AID and removing all signange an internal reorganization?
what DOGE was clearly doing was abolishing. yes, they'll be stopped, because it's illegal. it's rich for you to try to rely on that.
@interfluidity @Phil Is there anything in the law that dictates that #USAID must exist in perpetuity?
@realcaseyrollins @Phil Congressional action doesn't sunset unless the law they pass explicitly imposes such a sunset. absent some explicitly enacted executive option to abolish, only Congress can undo what Congress had said must exist.
@interfluidity @Phil So...I'm guessing no?
@realcaseyrollins @Phil No. Nothing must exist in perpetuity. The Constitution can be constitutionally abolished by amendment (everything except equal suffrage of states in a Senate which would no longer exist). But only Congress can end USAID's existence.
@interfluidity @Phil It's hard for me to get to that conclusion based on what you've presented so far.
@realcaseyrollins @Phil To what conclusion? That something Congress establishes in law can only be unestablished by Congress?
@interfluidity @Phil No, that #Congress established #USAID as something that exists in perpetuity, therefore only #Congress can abolish it
You yourself actually admitted that #Congress didn't even established it by law lol, #JFK created it as an executive order. And parts of the law both you and phil quote only refer to #USAID, they don't establish it or its lifespan.
@realcaseyrollins @Phil they explicitly foresee a reorganization that might even abolish it, and set a deadline for that, which is long passed. what point is there for Congress to define these things, define a process by which they might be reorganized, and define a termination date for that reorganization, if a President could with no process just reorganize it away anyway? 1/
@realcaseyrollins @Phil Congress creates things by saying they exist. Let there be light. That in this case there did exist something of the same name that they were explicitly codifying and formalizing doesn't somehow deplete that. /fin
@interfluidity @Phil Are there other examples of #Congress establishing agencies using identical language?
@realcaseyrollins @Phil Perhaps not, because AID did already exist as an executive creature. i don't know if there are others quite the same. 1/
@realcaseyrollins @Phil how about this one? "There is established in the Federal Reserve System, an independent bureau to be known as the 'Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection', which shall regulate the offering and provision of consumer financial products or services under the Federal consumer financial laws." https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:12%20section:5491%20edition:prelim) 2/
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins
The only justification needed is the evident corruption. It is the presidents duty to root it out.
And the President has the power to remove any personell from the executive brance, so while the agency can continue to exist, he can still remove all the people and it's legal.
@Phil @realcaseyrollins it has to continue also to perform the function for which Congress established it. Trump’s job is to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. the laws Congress made.
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins
And don't forget that the Executive branch and Congress and the Judicial branch are all supposed to be co-equal. Congress isn't superior, the courts are not supposed to be superior and the executive isn't supposed to be superior.
You seem to be holding Trump to a standard that no previous president has met.
@Phil @realcaseyrollins Congress is fact is superior. It is Article I for a reason. "coequal" is inexact. separate powers, non hierarchical is more exact. there are things each branch can do that the other cannot, ways each branch can check the others. but Congress is who ultimately rules, not the executive, not the judiciary. our Constitutional crisis is an absence of a functional Congress, at a deep level. https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2019/10/myth-of-coequal-branches-david-j-siemers-richard-bishirjian.html
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins
I see nothing in the constitution that makes congress superior.
@Phil @realcaseyrollins Article I. It sits before and above all the rest. The logic of a representative democracy. I'm sure there are stronger legal theories, I mean to read Siemers' book. Might not be a bad exercise for you as well.
@interfluidity @Phil I see no precedent that the #POTUS can refuse to execute laws passed by #Congress. What makes #POTUS' executive powers unique or special IIRC is that he can tell people to do *extra* things, not keep people from doing stuff like following the law.
@realcaseyrollins @interfluidity
It isn't villain speach, it is integral to the philosophy underscoring and the actual history surrounding the founding of the US.
Good grief, early presidents actually tried to foster that attitude in the People of the US. That they would guard their liberty with their lives, which certainly involves violence.
It's just that we have become passive pussies and it is why we have such an oppressive and wasteful government.
@Phil @realcaseyrollins i think we are oppressed much more by the incapacity of our government than by its waste. and given the clusterfuck Congress has become, our government functions remarkably well as a creature with its head cut off. our task is to restore a Congress that represents the American public in all its divers... plurality, and legislates vigorously on our behalf.
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins
Bull shit. I have seen choices between such fundimental things as safety and comfort, removed in my life time. I have experienced the right to pursue happiness be heavily narrowed in my lifetime.
When I was born there were an excessive 26000 pages of federal laws governing my behavior. There are now 189 THOUSAND pages, governing my behavior.
I couldn't learn all those laws in a lifetime and yet can be charged for not following them.
@Phil@freeatlantis.com@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins
Anybody that thinks we are free doesn't know what liberty is.
I was born in a free country, my kids were not.
Our problem is that our government has gone from thinking of themselves as public servants to thinking of themselves as the ruling class.
We are supposed to be self ruled.
Our problem is that 80% of what the feds do, are beyond the bounds that were set for them, and pinheads keep voting for more and crying when somebody comes along to try and fix it
@Phil @realcaseyrollins i also feel like the country i live in is far less free than the one i was born in. but its not government regulations that oppress me, it's the conditions of the marketplace. homes are out of reach expensive, the likelihood my kid, however amazingly does in school, will have good opportunities is narrowing. i perceive in government more a solution to these oppressions than a cause.
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins
Well government IS THE CAUSE, no matter how you feel.
Everything you mention, has had heavy intervention by government and it has fucked it up, and here you are saying more please.
@Phil @realcaseyrollins i don't know. the best housing situation in the world is Vienna. the best overall standard of living, the best shot of a good life for someone who can't pick who their parents will be, is in the Nordics. i think experience supports my case more than yours.