@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
Biden didn't enforce immigration laws.
Bush signed the Patriot act, with an announcement that his administration would not enforce certain provisions in it that he deemed unconstitutional.
nearly Every president has selectively enforced the law, based on their own agenda.
@Phil @realcaseyrollins officials do not always do their jobs. the parameters of a law are sometimes in dispute.
that's what lawsuits are for. it's not grounds to abandon the principle that the executive's duty is to ensure Congress' laws take effect.
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins
Sure, but there is no getting around the president interpreting those laws, in a way favorible to his objectives, particulary when those objectives were articulated and accepted by the majority of voters.
@Phil @realcaseyrollins a majority of voters voted against the current President. a narrow plurality voted for him. yes, Presidents necessarily interpret laws, but those interpretations must be bound by good faith readings, can and must be disciplined by the courts and Congress.
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins
And who is the arbitor of good faith? You?
@Phil @realcaseyrollins not me alone. you and me and 350M of our peers.
but like pornography, most of us know betrayals of good faith when we see them, and most of us will agree. taking Congressionally established agencies to the wood chipper or tombstone without any Congressional authority strikes me as a pretty clear betrayal of a good faith reading of the law. do you really disagree?
@interfluidity @Phil Wait wait wait back up did you just say #KamalaHarris won the popular vote in 2024???
@realcaseyrollins @Phil No, Harris did not win the popular vote.
Trump won a plurality, but not a majority. Most voters voted either for Harris or for a third party candidate.
Trump won the popular vote in the sense he got more votes than any other candidate. But no candidate, not Trump, got a majority of votes. A majority of voters voted against Harris. A majority of voters also voted against Trump.
> Trump won 77,284,118 votes, or 49.8 percent of the votes cast for president.
That's close enough for me
@realcaseyrollins @Phil close enough is not in fact a majority. 50.2% of those who came out did so to pull the lever for someone other than Donald Trump. most of the country never endorsed any of this. most voters, even, never endorsed any of this.
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins
he has a 53 percent approval rating, so obviously it's endorsed now.
@Phil @realcaseyrollins says CBS. 47% says Pew. and polls are noisy, fidgety things, not meaningful endorsement.
@Phil @realcaseyrollins the voters can't perform the Congress is intended to perform. Congress exists because voters can't be expert on the mechanics and happenings of government. direct democracy, in that sense, can't be "smart". so we hire professionals to learn our interests and values, and then capably represent those in government.
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins
Do you really believe that congress is an expert on anything?
People are generally far better off making as many decisions for themselves as possible and don't need some morons that are obliged to their donors making them for them.
The coutry is to vast and varied for so much centralized control and much more should be left to states/local government, where the people have more influence.
90% of the federal laws/regulations on the books need to be replealed.
@realcaseyrollins @interfluidity
My fantasy is a constitutional convention by the states. I would like to see the following amendments passed.
1. The SC is not the final arbitor of what is constitutional, that is left to the states and the people.
2. The federal govt is forbidden form requesting, possessing, viewing, intercepting, or accessing, private date of the people, irrespective of whether or not they have shared it with a 3rd party, absent a warrant base on probable cause.
3. cont.
@Phil@freeatlantis.com@realcaseyrollins @interfluidity
the 16th and 17th ammnedments are hereby repealed.
4. State laws superceded federal laws, except in those areas explicitly mentioned in this constitution.
5. A majorty of states, through their normal legislative process can nullify any federal law.
6. The federal register is limited to 10000 pages, beyond that, ignorance of the law is a valid defence.
7. every jury must be instructed that they can find somebody not guilty based on a law being unreasonable..
@Phil @realcaseyrollins i agree with 2 and 7! I'd like to see how we vote for Senators altered, but would not delegate it to State legislatures. As for the rest, if you got everything you want I don't think there'd be any point having a national government at all. if federal laws mean different things in different states, how do firms in interstate commerce comply? it seems to me you basically favor dissolution of the union.
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins
not at all, the constitution specifically grants the power to regulate interstate commerce to the feds. that wouldn' t change, unless they do something offensive enough for a majority of states to want to override them.
In areas that are specificaly mentioned in the constitution, feds reign supreme, in all others the states to. This is how it was supposed to be originally.
@Phil @realcaseyrollins but the meaning and Constitutionality of Federal laws would be different in all the 50 states, because you say it's left to the states or the people to interpret them. so, Congress could make a law wrt interstate commerces, twenty states could decide it's unconstitutional while 30 states are cool with it, firms must deal with both legal regimes.
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins
I said are the final arbitor of whether or not a law is constitutional.
So if 26 states determine a law is unconstitutional, that law is history.
If they don't the law stands.
The SC would continue to interpret laws, unless they do so in such a way as to render it unconstitutional in the eyes of the states.
The feds should derive their power from the states, not the other way around.
@Phil @realcaseyrollins would the states then serve the role of the Federal circuits, then? each state would interpret, but if there's a "split", the Supreme Court would step in? but states would reserve the right not to adhere to Supreme Court decisions?
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins
No, everything would function like it does now, but states would pick up the right to force repeal of federal laws that are beyond the bounds of the constitution, in the eyes of the states.
@Phil @interfluidity I'm on board with 2, 4, and 5
On point 1, there HAS to be a safeguard against unconstitutional actions. #SCOTUS is flawed, but I'd argue the best system we have to guard against that.
On point 6, you might end up seeing multiple pieces of legislation stitched together to work around this, so I don't think it'd be effectually binding.
/1
On point 7, if a law is unreasonable, it is up to the voters to repeal it. My counter to this is that anyone convicted or jailed for violating a repealed law must be released from jail upon that law being repealed.
/2
@realcaseyrollins @Phil sometimes laws are reasonable in general, but really not reasonable when applied to particular circumstances. it's already the case that jurors can refuse to convict despite finding in fact the law has been broken ("jury nullification"). but most jurors don't know this, and judges are forbidden from including it in jury instructions, so juries perhaps often do convict against their own consciences, out of a sense of duty to faithfully follow judges' instructions.
@interfluidity I completely disagree, this is how you get black kids arrested for jailwalking or #Trump getting arrested for keeping classified documents, but not other people for doing the same thing. No! Either everyone gets prosecuted for breaking the law, or the law gets repealed.
@realcaseyrollins that's a very real concern. in general there are conflicts between discretion and fairness. on the one hand, without discretion, you get the kind of stupidly procedural systems people describe pejoratively as "bureaucracy". on the other hand, when you introduce discretion, you introduce the possibility of unfair bias and corruption. i spend a fair amount of my time trying to think about how we should navigate this (really hard!) trade-off. 1/
@realcaseyrollins a black kid shouldn't get arrested for jaywalking when a white kid wouldn't. but no kid should be arrested for jaywalking if he's being chased by an assailant. mechanistic application of the law has all or none arrested, but it's fair. discretionary application would exonerate the chased, but it also might invidiously exonerate the white kid and not the black. it's hard! /fin
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins
Yes, Jury nullification should be a required jury instruction, in every criminal proceding.
A lot of people are missing at the moment that the safeguard against unconstitutional actions is NOT through #SCOTUS but through the Congress, and more importantly, through voters electing representatives who will react to unconstitutionality appropriately.
SCOTUS has no enforcement power against the Executive Branch. That was left to the Congresss.
Both SCOTUS and Congress can and should judge the President in different ways, but at the end of the day, it's up to the people we elect to Congress to react to whatever has been found about what the president has been doing.
Far too many congresspeople shirk their duties by pointing fingers at the other two branches when they're the only ones with the actual power to act, and that's critical to the US system.
@volkris @realcaseyrollins @interfluidity
This is problem is compounded by the simple fact that neither voters, nor congress police their own and will overlook very bad actors on their side and blow out of proportion actions of the other side.
@realcaseyrollins @interfluidity
Nothing in the constitution has ever been efectively binding. the point is to throw up obstacles.
Read the 10th ammendment, it certainly hasn't been binding.
@Phil @realcaseyrollins nothing has been perfectly binding. everything in real life "leaks". but, say, the 1st Amendment really has conditioned life here in a way quite different than most predecessor societies, and even most contemporary peers. the Constitution is not self-exercising, but it has been exercised a fair amount!
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins
Right and to the extent that it has been trampled, it's because people lack honor and or are power hungry and or filled with hubris.
So the point is to highten the fence a bit. it will never be perfect, but it would move us more toward the original intent and restore some liberty, possibly.
@Phil @realcaseyrollins at a sufficient level of generality we might agree on some things! i hesitate to get back into details, though, because i doubt we'd agree for long. and the day is passing with much undone.
@realcaseyrollins @interfluidity
or vague, or unconstitutional.
8. Federal spending is restricted to 15% of the previous years GDP. To excede this requires 65% of congress and the president and a majority of governers to agree.
9. Any federal employee who violates the constitutional rights of any citizens, must forfeit all of their personal assets to that person and spend no less than 5 years in prison.
10. All federal pensions must be defined contribution plans.